WAHEEDA MUNIR HODEKARversusTHE AUTHORISED OFFICER BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                                           23_WP12260_26.doc



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                              WRIT PETITION NO.12260 OF 2026

                          Waheeda Munir Hodekar                                   …       Petitioner
                          Vs.
                          Authorized Officer Bank of Maharashtra                  …       Respondent

                          Ms. Namrata Agashe a/w. Mr. Shreyas Choudhari for Petitioner.


                                                       CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
                                                               SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
                                                       DATE       : SEPTEMBER 17, 2026

                          P.C. :

                          .        Heard Mr. Agashe, learned counsel for the petitioner (borrower).

                          2.       The present writ petition is filed directly to challenge an e-auction
                          notice dated 03.08.2026 issued by the respondent bank (secured
                          creditor). As per the notice, an auction was to take place on 15.09.2026.
                          The petitioner does not have information as to what actually transpired
                          in the e-auction slated for 15.09.2026. It is an admitted position that the
                          petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy of filing
                          securitisation application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and
                          Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
                          Act, 2002 (for short ‘Securitisation Act’) before the Debts Recovery
                          Tribunal (DRT) at Pune. The said application was filed as far back as in
                          the year 2023 bearing Securitisation Application (D) No.1455 of 2023.

                          3.       It is the case of the petitioner that in the said securitisation
                          application, 25% amount due was deposited with the respondent bank
                          and the matter remained at that stage. Admittedly, there was no interim
MINAL Digitally
       by MINAL
                signed    order passed by the DRT in the pending securitisation application.
SANDIP SANDIP   PARAB
       Date: 2026.09.17
PARAB 18:44:20 +0530



                                                                                                        1/3
                                                               23_WP12260_26.doc



4.      It is also an admitted position that the securitisation application
stood dismissed on account of non-removal of office objections. The
petitioner claims that recently in August 2026, she became aware about
the fate of the securitisation application, only after e-auction notice was
pasted on the premises of the petitioner. Thereafter, steps were taken for
filing appropriate proceedings for restoration of the securitisation
application. We are informed that it is pending in the form of a chamber
appeal before the presiding officer of DRT. The learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner further informs that an application for
interim relief is also preferred bearing Interim Application No.3334 of
2026.

5.      In the face of the aforesaid admitted facts, we are of the opinion
that the petitioner is to blame for her own predicament. Now that,
admittedly, steps have been taken to seek restoration of the securitisation
application and an application for interim relief is already filed before
the DRT, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The
Supreme Court in a number of judgements, including in the case of
United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, (2010) 8 SCC
110, has held 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 remedy available under the
provisions of the Securitisation Act by approaching the DRT.

6.      In its judgement in the case of Celir LLP Vs. Bafna Motors
(Mumbai) Private Limited and others, (2024) 2 SCC 1, in paragraph
101, 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 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


                                                                            2/3
                                                                23_WP12260_26.doc



         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.”

7.       We are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to
knock the doors of the Writ Court at her sweet will when the situation of
urgency has arisen, despite having availed of the statutory remedy under
the provisions of the Securitisation Act. Therefore, the writ petition is
dismissed. However, appropriate directions can be issued to DRT at
Pune in the light of the facts pointed out before this Court. The DRT at
Pune is directed to expeditiously consider the pending Chamber Appeal
(D) No.2350 of 2026 and Interim Application No.3334 of 2026 (for
interim reliefs).

8.       The said chamber appeal and the application shall be taken up for
appropriate orders in an expeditious manner and preferably within two
weeks from today.

9.       Pending applications, if any, in this writ petition are also disposed
of.



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

Minal Parab




                                                                             3/3