Bombay High Court
BADAR SINGHversusBANK OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court ordered the bank to refund the deposited amount and directed the DRT to hear and dispose of the interim application and cancel the sale certificate, without expressing a view on the merits.
Summary
The petitioner, an auction purchaser, deposited ₹41,85,000 with the bank and obtained a sale certificate on 11‑02‑2025, but subsequent interim relief granted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) prevented him from taking possession. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a refund of the deposited amount and, alternatively, direction to the DRT to dispose of the pending interim application in the securitisation proceedings. The Court noted that the petitioner had previously been directed to approach the DRT and that the related applications were languishing, causing hardship. It ordered the bank to refund the full amount within a week and directed the DRT to hear the interim application and decide on interest by 31‑10‑2026. The Court also directed that the sale certificate be cancelled upon disposal of the interim application and that the bank furnish details of outstanding dues of the borrowers. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the interim application, leaving the parties' rights open.
Issues considered
- Whether the bank is obligated to refund the auction purchaser's deposited amount pending DRT proceedings
- Whether interest is payable on the refunded amount
- Whether the sale certificate issued to the petitioner should be cancelled pending adjudication of the interim application
- Whether the DRT should be directed to expedite disposal of the interim application and the securitisation application
Subjects
- auction purchase
- sale certificate
- refund
- interest
- Debt Recovery Tribunal
- interim application
- securitisation
- bank
- writ petition
Judgment
18_WP_11666_26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11666 OF 2026
Badar Singh … Petitioner
vs.
Bank of Maharashtra and others … Respondents
Mr. Charles Desouza a/w. Ms. Preeti Barde for petitioner.
Mr. Abhijit Ranjan a/w. Mr. Tanmay S., i/b. Kay Legal and Associates LLP
for respondent No.1 – bank.
Mr. Aayush Kothari, i/b. Mr. Dipesh Gupta and Mr. Raj Dani for respondent
Nos.2 to 4.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner (auction
purchaser) in peculiar circumstances.
2. The petitioner was a successful auction purchaser, who had
deposited the entire sale consideration of ₹ 41,85,000 with
respondent No.1 – bank (secured creditor) and a sale certificate was
also issued in favour of the petitioner on 11.02.2025.
3. Thereafter, in an interim application filed by the original
borrowers i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 5 in Securitisation Application
No.147 of 2025, the Debts Recovery Tribunal – II, Mumbai (DRT)
passed an order on 20.03.2025, granting interim relief, subject to
certain amounts being deposited by the said respondents with the
respondent No.1 – bank.
Digitally signed
PRIYA
by PRIYA
KAMBLI
KAMBLI Date:
2026.09.11 1/3
10:35:32 +0530
18_WP_11666_26.doc
4. As a consequence, the petitioner was unable to enjoy the
subject property, although sale certificate dated 11.02.2025 was
issued in his favour. With passage of time, the petitioner is reported
to have bought another property for which he has taken loan and he
wants to exit from this controversy.
5. It is an admitted position that for similar reliefs, earlier the
petitioner had filed Writ Petition (Stamp) No.11826 of 2025, which
was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 24.04.2025. The
petitioner was granted liberty to approach the DRT for necessary
reliefs. Accordingly, the petitioner was constrained to file Interim
Application No.1184 of 2025 in the said pending Securitisation
Application No.147 of 2025.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said
interim application, securitisation application and the applications
filed by the respondents – borrowers are all pending and languishing
before the DRT and the petitioner is suffering with each passing day.
7. In that light, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to
respondent No.1 – bank to refund the amount of ₹ 41,85,000 along
with interest at the rate of 10% from the date of deposit till
realisation of the said amount. Alternatively, the petitioner has also
prayed for a direction to the DRT to dispose of the said interim
application filed in the pending securitisation application.
8. Respondent No.1 – bank as well as respondent Nos.2 to 5
borrowers are represented by counsel.
2/3
18_WP_11666_26.doc
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties for some
time, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition by issuing
appropriate directions.
10. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in
following terms:
(a) Respondent No.1 – bank shall refund the aforesaid amount of ₹
41,85,000 to the petitioner within one week from today;
(b) On the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to
payment of interest on the said amount, the DRT is directed to
take up Interim Application No.1184 of 2025 filed by the
petitioner in Securitisation Application No.147 of 2025. The
said application shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously
and in any case, on or before 31.10.2026;
(c) Upon disposal of Interim Application No.1184 of 2025, the sale
certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, shall stand
cancelled.
(d) The DRT is also at liberty to expeditiously dispose of pending
Securitisation Application No.147 of 2025 and other interim
applications that may be pending therein; and
(e) To facilitate the same, respondent No.1 – bank is directed to
give details of the outstanding amount due from respondent
Nos.2 to 5, in terms of order dated 20.02.2026 passed by DRT,
at the earliest and in any case, within two weeks from today.
11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merits of Interim Application No.1184 of 2025. All rights and
contentions of the parties are kept open.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Priya Kambli
3/3
Checking your session…