Bombay High Court
SITARAM DATTARAM ADARKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to challenge a Section 14 order; the remedy lies exclusively under the SARFAESI Act.
Summary
Petitioner Sitaram Dattaram Adarkar filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18 July 2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The High Court held that challenges to actions taken under Section 14 must be made under the SARFAESI Act itself and that the court's writ jurisdiction is not available for such matters. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. No counsel appeared for the petitioner, while the respondent was represented by R.P. Kadam. The decision reaffirms the exclusive remedial route provided by the SARFAESI Act for disputes arising under its provisions.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court's writ jurisdiction can be invoked to challenge an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act
- Whether the remedy for such a challenge is exclusively available under the SARFAESI Act
Legislation cited
Subjects
- SARFAESI Act
- Section 14
- writ petition
- jurisdiction
- non-prosecution
- financial assets
- enforcement of security interest
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:9414-DB
16-WP-12058-2025(C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12058 OF 2025
Sitaram Dattaram Adarkar ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents
——————
None for the Petitioner.
Mr. R.P. Kadam, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 30, 2026.
P. C. :
1. The present Petition challenges the order dated 18 th July, 2025
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under
Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”).
2. None appears on behalf of the Petitioner.
3. It is well settled that the remedy is available under the SARFAESI
Act, for challenging any action taken under Section 14 of the said Act,
and the writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked.
4. It appears that, as the order was passed in the year 2025, the
same must have been taken to its logical end. The Petition stands
dismissed for non-prosecution.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Jamadar - SL 1 of 1
Checking your session…