Bombay High Court

BANK OF INDIAversusRAJENDRA VITTHAL SHINDE AND ORS

Decided: 28 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court declined to interfere with the merits but ordered the DRT‑3 to hear and dispose the interim application on 11 September 2026, thereby disposing the writ petition.

Summary

The Bank of India, a secured creditor, filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal‑3 (DRT‑3), Mumbai that stayed further auction proceedings pending an interim application filed by the original borrowers/guarantors. The High Court observed that the stay was based on the alleged non‑appearance of the bank’s counsel, which was later explained as a technical glitch in a virtual appearance. The Court noted that the interim application and the related securitisation proceedings were ready for hearing and that repeated adjournments had caused delay. It accepted the bank’s suggestion to expedite the matter by fixing timelines for filing reply and rejoinder affidavits and directing DRT‑3 to hear and dispose the interim application on 11 September 2026. No merits of the underlying dispute were decided; the writ petition was disposed without prejudice to the parties’ rights.

Issues considered

Whether the stay order passed by DRT‑3 on the ground of the petitioner's alleged non‑appearance is legally valid.
Whether the High Court can direct the DRT‑3 to hear and dispose the pending interim application on a specified date.

Subjects

writ petition
Debt Recovery Tribunal
auction stay
interim application
securitisation
virtual appearance
procedural order
court directions

Judgment

11-WP-40709-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 10709 OF 2026

Bank of India … Petitioner
Versus
Rajendra Vitthal Shinde and others … Respondents
******
SWEETY
RAJU
BHALERAO Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Mr. Raghav Dharmadhikari, a/w Adv. Kashish, i/b
Digitally signed
by SWEETY
Ms. Sonam Chandwani, for KS Legal & Associates, for Petitioner.
RAJU
BHALERAO
Date:
2026.08.28
17:27:20
Adv. D. Naik, i/b Mr. Chandresh Rao, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
+0530

Mr. Sohan K. i/b Mr. Punit Gogad, for Respondent No. 4.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT,JJ.
DATE : 28th AUGUST 2026.
PC:

1. The present petition is filed by the bank (secured creditor), being

aggrieved by an order dated 11/06/2026 passed by the Debt Recovery

Tribunal-3, Mumbai (DRT-3), whereby further proceedings pursuant to an

auction conducted by the Petitioner bank have been effectively stayed till

decision on Interim Application No. 1989 of 2026 (for interim reliefs) filed

by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original borrowers/guarantors) in pending

Securitization Application No. 382 of 2023 filed by the said Respondents.

2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that DRT-3 appears to have

issued the said direction on the ground that there was no appearance on

Bhalerao 1
11-WP-40709-2026.doc

behalf of the Petitioner bank, which is the Respondent in the proceedings

before DRT-3, Mumbai/in-charge Court. It is also recorded that the Petitioner

bank did not furnish details regarding the auction that was conducted. We

are informed that this was the third attempt at auction and that now there is

a successful auction purchaser who has filed an application for intervention

in the pending proceedings before DRT-3.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner bank has given a

suggestion, which can lead to the disposal of the writ petition itself.

4. It is pointed out that an urgent praecipe was moved before DRT-3 on

the very next day, i.e, 12/06/2026 informing DRT-3 about the fact that the

advocate representing the Petitioner bank had joined the proceedings

virtually and he was logged in online, but due to some technical reasons

beyond the control of the said advocate, his appearance was not marked in

the proceedings dated 11/06/2026. It is submitted that instead of going into

the said controversy, the concern of the Petitioner bank and obviously that of

the successful auction purchaser is that the pending Interim Application No.

1989 of 2026 is decided at the earliest.

5. It is brought to our notice that hearing on the said application has

been adjourned on various dates, i.e., 22/06/2026, 17/07/2026,

28/07/2026, 07/08/2026, 17/08/2026 and 21/08/2026. The next date of

hearing is 11/09/2026. It is submitted that the pleadings in Interim

Bhalerao 2
11-WP-40709-2026.doc

Application No. 1989 of 2026 are complete. In the interregnum, the

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have amended the securitization application and

the amended papers have been recently served upon the Petitioner bank. It is

stated that reply affidavit to the amended securitization application shall be

filed by the bank on or before 01/09/2026, so that there is enough time for

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to file a rejoinder thereto, if any, so that the

pending Interim Application No. 1989 of 2026 can be heard and appropriate

orders can be passed in the said application on the next date of listing, i.e.,

11/09/2026.

6. We are of the opinion that the said suggestion given on behalf of the

bank can be accepted, as hearing and disposal of the pending Interim

Application No. 1989 of 2026 would be in the interest of all the concerned

parties. There can be no opposition from any of the parties to the

proceedings with regard to early disposal of the pending interim application.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

(a) The Petitioner bank shall file its further reply affidavit in

the amended Securitisation Application No. 382 of 2023 on

or before 01/09/2026. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are

applicants in the said securitization application, shall file

their rejoinder affidavit, if any, on or before 9 th September

2026.

Bhalerao 3
11-WP-40709-2026.doc

(b) Since the pleadings in Interim Application No. 1989 of

2026 are complete, DRT-3, Mumbai/in-charge Court shall

take up the said application for hearing and disposal on the

next date, i.e., 11/09/2026.

parties, including the auction purchaser and thereupon,

Interim Application No. 1989 of 2026 shall be disposed of

on the next date of listing, i.e., 11/09/2026.

7. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. Pending applications,

if any, stand disposed of.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

Bhalerao 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…