Bombay High Court
INDIAN BANK SAM THR. DEEPAK KUMAR VAISHNAV CHIEF MANAGERversusPRAKASH PADURANG BHOIR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court allowed the interim application directing removal of the dog and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Prakash Padurang Bhoir, filed a writ petition challenging a 2020 order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act that allowed the bank to take possession of a secured asset. The bank, invoking Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, auctioned the property after the original borrower defaulted, but a Rottweiler dog remained on the premises, obstructing the new owner. The bank filed an interim application seeking an order directing the petitioner to remove the dog or have the animal taken into custody by the District Deputy Commissioner, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Thane. The court noted the petitioner's delay and the availability of alternative remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It allowed the interim application, directing removal of the dog within one week, and dismissed the writ petition, stating the dismissal does not preclude the petitioner from pursuing other legal remedies.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner can be compelled to remove a dog from the premises of a secured asset sold under the SARFAESI Act.
- Whether the interim application for animal removal is maintainable despite the pending writ petition.
- Whether the writ petition challenging the 2020 magistrate order is barred by delay and the existence of alternative statutory remedies.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- SARFAESI Act
- secured asset
- auction
- animal removal
- interim relief
- writ petition
- possession
- enforcement of security interest
Judgment
910-WP-15767-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15767 OF 2025
Prakash Padurang Bhoir .. Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra Thr. The .. Respondents
Principal Secretary Revenue
Department and Ors
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 907 OF 2026
Indian Bank Sam Thr. Deep Ak Kumar .. Applicant
Vaishnav Chief Manager
V/s.
DigitallyPrakash Padurang Bhoir .. Respondent
signed by
VARSHA
VARSHA DEEPAK -------------------
DEEPAK GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
Mr. Shubham Thakur, for the Petitioner.
2026.02.18
16:18:28
+0530
Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP, a/w Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for the
Respondent/State.
Ms. Tejasvi Dalvi, for the Applicant in IA/907/2026 and for Respondent No.
7 in WP/15767/2025.
--------------------
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY 2026.
PC:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Respondent No. 7-
Bank (Secured Creditor) has been constrained to file Interim
Application No. 907 of 2026 in peculiar circumstances and praying for
relief, which is also peculiar in nature.
Sweety 1 of 4
910-WP-15767-2025.doc
2. The applicant (Respondent No. 7- Bank) has prayed for a
direction to the petitioner to take away his Rottweiler Dog from the
premises of the secured asset, which has been sold in accordance with
law by the applicant. Alternatively, it is prayed that the District Deputy
Commissioner, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Thane or Member
Secretary of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Thane be
directed to take custody of the said animal.
3. The applicant (Respondent No. 7- Bank) took steps under the
provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) in
respect of the secured asset as the original borrower i.e. Respondent
No. 4 failed to pay its dues. The Applicant/Respondent No. 7- Bank
invoked Section 13(2) and (4) of the SARFAESI Act and thereupon,
applied to the Magistrate under Section 14 thereof for taking physical
possession of the secured asset. The applicant thereafter conducted
auction and sold the secured asset to the auction purchaser. The only
impediment, as on today, is the fact that the aforesaid animal is in the
premises of the secured asset and creating an obstruction for the
auction purchaser to enter upon the property.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant further informs this Court
Sweety 2 of 4
910-WP-15767-2025.doc
that the petitioner, who is not in physical possession anymore, is only
permitted to feed the animal at the premises. Repeated requests made
to the petitioner to remove the animal have not resulted in any positive
action, due to which the applicant is constrained to move the present
application.
5. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner to challenge an order
passed as far back as on 29th October 2020, by the Competent
Magistrate under the Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It appears that it
took about five years for the applicant (Respondent No. 7- Bank) to
take actual physical possession of the secured asset in September 2025.
6. The petitioner claims rights in the subject property on the basis
of statements made in the writ petition and alleged transaction with
Respondent No. 5 i.e. the original mortgagor of the property in
question.
7. We find that the challenge raised by the petitioner is not only be
lated, but it is in the face of existence of an alternative statutory
remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the
provisions of the SARFAESI Act.
8. When we indicated that we are not inclined to entertain the
Sweety 3 of 4
910-WP-15767-2025.doc
petition any further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner desires to file a suit and in that context, the petition
may be permitted to be withdrawn.
9. In view of the discussion hereinabove, we are inclined to allow
the interim application and dispose of the writ petition.
10. The Interim Application No. 907 of 2026 is allowed and the
petitioner is directed to remove the aforesaid animal (Rottweiler Dog)
from the premises of the subject secured asset within a period of one
week from today, failing which the District Deputy Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Thane is directed to take custody of
the said animal forthwith.
11. The writ petition is dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of
the writ petition will not come in the way of the petitioner in taking
recourse to such remedies as may be available in law. It is further made
clear that the petitioner will not create any further obstructions with
regard to the subject secured asset.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Sweety 4 of 4
Checking your session…