JYOTI KIRAN KALYANKARversusBANK OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND ANR

                                                                1
                                                                                       29-wp-11165-2026.doc

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 11165 OF 2026

                      Jyoti Kiran Kalyankar                                       …Petitioner
                             Versus
                      Bank of Maharashtra and Another                             …Respondents

                      Mr. Vijay Chandavale, for the Petitioner
                      Mr. Abhijit Ranjan i/b. C. Shah Kaylegal & Associates LLP, for the
                      Respondent No. 1.
                      Ms. Meezan Patel, for Respondent No. 2.

                                                      CORAM     : MANISH PITALE AND
VISHAL
SUBHASH                                                           SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
PAREKAR                                               DATE      : 31st AUGUST, 2026
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
PAREKAR
                      P.C. :
Date: 2026.08.31
17:47:36 +0530

                      1.          Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.


                      2.          Respondents No. 1 and 2 are represented by counsel today. On

                      their request, they are permitted to place their vakalatnamas on

                      record within one week from today.


                      3.          The petitioner has directly filed this writ petition to challenge

                      order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

                      (DRT),           whereby   an   interim   application   filed   in   a   pending

                      Securitisation Application was disposed of by issuing specific

                      directions.


                      4.          We are of the opinion that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the

                      Vishal Parekar                                                                          ….1
                                      2
                                                          29-wp-11165-2026.doc


said order passed by the DRT, recourse must be taken to the

alternative efficacious statutory remedy available to the petitioner to

file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).


5.          In the face of such statutory remedy being available to the

petitioner, no special or extraordinary ground is made out for

entertaining the present writ petition. An attempt was made on behalf

of the petitioner to contend that interpretation of certain circular of

the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has not been done properly by the

DRT in the impugned order. Nothing prevents the petitioner from

taking the said ground and all other grounds available on merits to

challenge the said order before the DRAT in terms of the statutory

remedy available to the petitioner.


6.          The Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India vs.

Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110 held as far back as in the year

2010 that High Courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India ought not to entertain writ petitions in the

face of alternative efficacious statutory remedies available under the

provisions of the SARFAESI Act.


7.          Since High Courts appeared to be entertaining such petitions


Vishal Parekar                                                                   ….2
                                                  3
                                                                            29-wp-11165-2026.doc


despite the settled position of law indicated by the Supreme Court, in

the case of Celir LLP vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. (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 a 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.



8.          In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the present

petition cannot be entertained. The petitioner ought to take recourse

to the alternative efficacious statutory remedy of appeal before DRAT

available under the provisions of the Securitisation Act.


9.          In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.


10.         However, the petitioner is at liberty to exhaust the alternative

efficacious statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the DRAT in

accordance with law. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the

merits of the matter. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept

open.




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

Vishal Parekar                                                                                     ….3