Bombay High Court
ASHOK KUMAR MEHTA S/O NAGRAJ JI MEHTAversusBANK OF BARODA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court directed that respondents may file reply affidavits and the DRAT must dispose of Appeal No.130 of 2023 by 15 December 2026.
Summary
The petitioner, a mortgagor/guarantor, filed a writ petition seeking the High Court to direct the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai, to expedite the disposal of its pending Appeal No.130 of 2023. The petition highlighted that the appeal had been listed but further adjourned, causing delay for all parties, including the auction purchaser who is not before the Court. Respondent No.1 (Bank of Baroda) requested permission to file reply affidavits to complete pleadings. The Court held that it could issue procedural directions to the DRAT and allowed the filing of reply and rejoinder affidavits within specified timeframes, directing the DRAT to dispose of the appeal by 15 December 2026. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can direct the DRAT to expedite the disposal of a pending appeal.
- Whether the respondents may be permitted to file reply affidavits in the pending appeal.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- expeditious disposal
- DRAT
- appeal
- mortgage
- guarantor
- procedural direction
- banking law
Judgment
9_WP11231_26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11231 OF 2026
Ashok Kumar Mehta s/o. Nagraj Ji Mehta … Petitioner
Vs.
Bank of Baroda and another … Respondents
Ms. Vaishali Bhilare a/w. Mr. Somesh Talla for Petitioner.
Mr. Anant R. Bamne i/b. M/s. A. R. Bamne & Co. for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026
P.C. :
. By this petition, the petitioner (mortgagor / guarantor) is seeking
limited relief or direction to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
Mumbai (DRAT) to expeditiously dispose of pending Appeal No.130 of
2023.
2. Respondent No.1 Bank is represented by a counsel while
respondent No.2 is the auction purchaser. The proceedings pertain to the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
of Security Interest Act, 2002.
3. The documents filed with the petition show that the aforesaid
appeal was listed on 03.08.2026 before the DRAT when an order was
passed for listing the appeal on 30.10.2026.
4. We are of the opinion that although respondent No.2 (auction
MINAL
SANDIP
Digitally signed
by MINAL
SANDIP PARAB
Date: 2026.09.02
purchaser) is not before this Court, a direction for expeditious disposal
PARAB 10:44:56 +0530
of the pending appeal would be in the interest of all concerned parties,
including respondent No.2.
1/2
9_WP11231_26.doc
5. Mr. Bamne, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Bank submits
that this Court may consider permitting the respondents to file their reply
affidavits, if not already filed in the pending appeal, so that the pleadings
can be completed and the appeal can be taken into consideration as
expeditiously as possible.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in the
following manner:-
A. The respondents are permitted to file their reply affidavits in
pending Regular Appeal No.130 of 2023 before the DRAT,
Mumbai within a period of six weeks from today;
B. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, on behalf of the petitioner shall be
filed within two weeks thereafter;
C. The DRAT, Mumbai shall dispose of the pending Regular
Appeal No.130 of 2023 as expeditiously as possible and in
any case, on or before 15.12.2026.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Minal Parab
2/2
Checking your session…