JAYESH KESHAVJI VORA AND ANRversusBANK OF INDIA THRU OFFICER

                                                                                          908_WP11122_26.doc



                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                               WRIT PETITION NO.11122 OF 2026

                            Jayesh Keshavji Vora and another                       …      Petitioners
                            Vs.
                            Bank of India                                          …      Respondents

                            Mr. Anup Lahoti for Petitioners.


                                                         CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
                                                                 SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
                                                         DATE      : AUGUST 25, 2026

                            P.C. :

                            .        Heard Mr. Lahoti, learned counsel for the petitioners.

                            2.       The petitioners are original borrowers, who have approached this
                            Court by filing the present writ petition.

                            3.       This writ petition was mentioned yesterday for urgent circulation
                            for today on the ground that auction sale of the secured asset is slated for
                            today (25.08.2026) as per notice issued by the respondent bank (secured
                            creditor).

                            4.       The petitioners have an alternative efficacious statutory remedy of
                            approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the provisions of
                            the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
                            Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act) to air
MINAL    Digitally signed
         by MINAL
SANDIP   SANDIP PARAB

PARAB
         Date: 2026.08.25
         17:49:57 +0530
                            their grievance. As a matter of fact, admittedly, the petitioners have
                            already filed securitisation application before the DRT-II, Mumbai for
                            appropriate reliefs.

                            5.       The Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs.
                            Satyawati Tandon and others, (2010) 8 SCC 110, has held that in the

                                                                                                        1/2
                                                               908_WP11122_26.doc



face of such an alternative efficacious statutory remedy, the High Court
exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
ought not to entertain the writ petitions. It appears that despite the said
position of law being repeatedly indicated by the Supreme Court, the
High Courts were still entertaining the writ petitions, and therefore in the
case of Celir LLP Vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and
others, (2024) 2 SCC 1, the Supreme Court was constrained to observe
as follows:-
        “101. More than a decade back, this Court had expressed
        serious concern despite its repeated pronouncements in regard
        to the High Courts ignoring the availability of statutory
        remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act and
        exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
        Even after, the decision of this Court in Satyawati Tondon, it
        appears that the High Courts have continued to exercise its writ
        jurisdiction under Article 226 ignoring the statutory remedies
        under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act.”

6.       In view of the above, we are of the opinion that present writ
petition cannot be entertained. In any case, the petitioners have already
approached DRT-II, Mumbai by filing securitisation application. They
are at liberty to pursue the same. Needless to say, the steps taken by the
respondent bank as secured creditor would be tested by the DRT in the
said securitisation application filed by the petitioners.

7.       In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the
petitioners are at liberty to pursue their pending securitisation
application before the DRT-II, Mumbai. This Court has not expressed
any opinion on merits of the matter.

8.       All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.



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


Minal Parab                                                                  2/2