The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that a writ court does not intervene in cases where there is a mere violation of statutory provisions or norms unless it results in injustice. The Court relied on the precedent set in Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. State of Haryana (1980) 2 SCC 437, emphasizing that legal principles must be balanced with equity.
"Legal formulations cannot be enforced in isolation from the realities of the case. Law must be administered with equity, and if fairness demands that legal technicalities should not be pursued to their logical conclusion, the High Court has a duty to recognize this and exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction accordingly." - Supreme Court
The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, clarified that the High Court has discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs. Even if an order is found to be technically invalid, the High Court can refuse to intervene if it serves the larger purpose of substantial justice.
Read Also:- Workplace Reprimand for Official Duties Not a Criminal Offense Under IPC Section 504: Supreme Court
Case Background
The case involved M.S. Sanjay v. Indian Bank & Others (Civil Appeal No. 1188/2025). The appellant, M.S. Sanjay, was the auction purchaser of a property that was mortgaged by the borrower against a bank loan. When the borrower defaulted, the bank auctioned the property in 2007, and Sanjay emerged as the highest bidder, purchasing it for Rs. 24,00,000. A sale certificate was issued in his favor, and he began developing the property.
Although the borrower did not challenge the auction, the guarantor (Respondent No. 4) filed a writ petition, claiming the auction was illegal because the bank had not given a 15-day notice before the sale.
The Karnataka High Court upheld the guarantor's plea, declaring the auction invalid, and set aside the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) order, which had previously ruled in favor of the bank.
Read Also:- PMLA Accused Cannot Be Kept in Custody If ED's Complaint Cognizance Order is Quashed: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court criticized the guarantor for dragging the appellant into frivolous litigation over a technicality. The Court noted:
"It all started in 2007 when the appellant paid the full sale consideration and obtained the sale certificate. Neither the borrower nor the guarantor raised objections at that time. The challenge came only in 2008, which indicates an afterthought." - Supreme Court
The Court highlighted that the appellant had already invested Rs. 1.5 crore in developing the property, and it was unreasonable for the High Court to focus solely on the number of days of notice rather than the overall fairness of the situation.
"The High Court should have taken a practical approach, considering that the auction had attained finality back in 2007." - Supreme Court
The Court cited Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. State of Haryana to reinforce that Article 226 is discretionary and that the High Court must exercise it only in cases where injustice has occurred, rather than enforcing technical statutory violations without regard to equity.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the DRAT's decision, ruling in favor of M.S. Sanjay.
Although the Court considered imposing costs on the guarantor for engaging in unnecessary litigation, it ultimately decided against it.
"At one point, we considered imposing costs on Respondent No. 4 for initiating frivolous litigation, but we have refrained from doing so." - Supreme Court
This case reaffirms that writ courts must balance legal correctness with practical equity and should not interfere merely for technical statutory violations, especially when no substantial injustice has occurred.
