Bombay High Court
MAHESH TAMNAYA KOTIYAN AND ANRversusUNION OF INDIA THRU. THE SEC. AT THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous because the subject property has already been transferred to the auction purchaser.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their interim relief application. While the petition was pending, the secured creditor bank (respondent No.2) took physical possession of the subject property and transferred it to the auction purchaser (respondent No.3). The Court held that the petition had become infructuous because the property was no longer in dispute. It directed the respondents to file reply affidavits in the pending appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) and set a timeline for the appeal's disposal. The Court also ordered that the pending writ petition be dismissed and any other applications be disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition remains maintainable after the property has been taken over by the secured creditor and auctioned.
- Procedural directions for the pending appeal before the DRAT.
Subjects
- writ petition
- interim relief
- possession
- auction
- DRAT
- infructuous
- civil appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
bipin prithiani
1
17-wp-11400.26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11400 OF 2026
Mahesh Tamnaya Kotiyan & Anr. … Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. … Respondents
******
Mr. Sidharth Samantaray a/w Mr. Mukesh Dongarge and Mr.
Dipak V. Bhalerao for Petitioners.
Ms. Savita Nangare a/w Ms. Disha Shah i/by Law Folus for
Respondent No.2-PNB.
Ms. Janvi Joshi a/w Ms. Komal Patil and Ms. Manjula Chigari i/by
Monmohan Rao for Respondent No.3.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
. This petition is filed to challenge order dated 12 th August
2026, whereby the application for interim reliefs was rejected.
When the petition is called out for hearing, it is brought to our
notice that physical possession of the subject property was taken
by the respondent No.2-bank (secured creditor) and it has been
already handed over to respondent No.3-auction purchaser. We
are of the opinion that the petition is rendered infructuous and it
can be disposed of.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this
Court may consider expediting the hearing of the appeal pending
bipin prithiani
2
17-wp-11400.26.doc
before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (DRAT). It
would be appropriate that DRAT takes up the appeal for disposal
at the earliest possible.
3. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 being the contesting
respondents in the pending appeal, shall file their reply affidavits,
within four weeks from today, before the DRAT in the pending
appeal. Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed within two weeks thereafter
by the petitioners.
4. Thereupon, the DRAT shall take up the appeal for hearing
and disposal expeditiously. In any case, the appeal shall be
disposed of on or before 31st December 2026.
5. The appeal shall be decided without being influenced by
order dated 28th July 2026 passed in Writ Petition No. 8601 of
2026 (M/s. Jasraj Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors.) and the impugned order dated 12 th August
2026 passed in Interim Application No.489 of 2026 in the
pending appeal.
6. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Digitally signed by
BIPIN BIPIN DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER PRITHIANI
PRITHIANI Date: 2026.09.05
11:21:58 +0530
Checking your session…