STAR MINING INFRACON INDIA PVT LTD AND ORSversusBANK OF INDIA

                                                                                          17_WP12264_26.doc



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                             WRIT PETITION NO.12264 OF 2026

                          Star Mining Infracon India Pvt. Ltd. and others        …       Petitioners
                          Vs.
                          Bank of India                                          …       Respondent

                          Mr. Ram Upadhyay a/w. Mr. Narayan Mishra i/b. Law Competere Consultus for
                          Petitioners.
                          Mr. Akshay Shetty i/b. AVC & Associates for Respondent No.1.


                                                      CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
                                                              SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
                                                      DATE       : SEPTEMBER 16, 2026

                          P.C. :

                          .        The petitioners in this petition are the borrowers and they have
                          approached this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging an
                          order dated 27.08.2026 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II,
                          Mumbai (DRT-II), whereby Interim Application No.2104 of 2026 filed
                          on their behalf in pending Securitisation Application No.196 of 2026 has
                          been disposed of as infructuous.

                          2.       The principal grievance of the petitioners is that there were other
                          prayers in the said interim application, which have not been considered
                          and the entire application has been erroneously disposed of.

                          3.       The contesting respondent bank is represented by a counsel.
MINAL Digitally
       by MINAL
                signed

SANDIP SANDIP   PARAB
       Date: 2026.09.16
PARAB 17:38:13 +0530
                          4.       The petitioners could have filed an appeal before the Debts
                          Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) if they were aggrieved by the
                          impugned order dated 27.08.2026. But, the learned counsel for the
                          petitioners is at pains to point out that principles of natural justice have
                          been violated and that procedurally, the DRT-II has erred inasmuch as

                                                                                                       1/3
                                                               17_WP12264_26.doc



prayer clauses (b) and (c) made in the said interim application have been
completely ignored and the entire application has been disposed of as
infructuous.

5.    The learned counsel appearing for respondent bank has opposed
the present writ petition, inter alia, on the ground of maintainability.

6.    We have perused the impugned order dated 27.08.2026. It reads as
follows:-
       “       During hearing, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Bank
       states that no bid has been received by the Respondent Bank in
       response to the auction scheduled on 25.08.2026, so, nothing
       survives in I.A.No.2104 of 2026 for Stay, filed by the
       Applicant.
             The statement made by Ld. Advocate for the
       Respondent is accepted and shall act as an order of this
       Tribunal.
              In view of the statement made by Ld. Advocate for the
       Respondent, I.A.No.2104 of 2026 stands disposed of being
       infructuous.
               List this matter before Ld. Registrar on 25.11.2026 for
       filing reply to S.A.”


7.    In the light of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners,
we have perused the contents of Interim Application No.2104 of 2026
filed on behalf of the petitioners before DRT-II. We find that vide prayer
clause (a), a stay of notice of sale issued by the respondent bank was
sought. Prayer clause (b) was concerned with a direction for restraining
the respondent bank from taking physical possession of the secured
asset, while prayer clause (c) was concerned with a direction to the bank
to provide copies of certain documents. A perusal of the above-quoted
impugned order dated 27.08.2026 shows that the DRT-II has disposed of
the interim application as infructuous, focusing upon prayer clause (a) of
the application concerning stay of the notice of sale. We find no error on
the part of DRT-II inasmuch as the respondent itself made a statement

                                                                            2/3
                                                             17_WP12264_26.doc



that not a single bid was received in response to the said sale notice on
the date of auction.

8.      Insofar as the prayer clauses (b) and (c) of the application being
ignored by DRT-II, we are of the opinion that the petitioners can file a
fresh application, if they so desire for reliefs in terms of prayer clauses
(b) and (c) in Interim Application No.2104 of 2026 as and when the
cause of action arises.

9.      We are informed that as on today, application under Section 14 of
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 filed by the respondent bank
is pending before the competent Magistrate. Therefore, we are not
inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.

10.     However, liberty is reserved for the petitioners to file a fresh
interim application in the pending securitisation application, if so
advised, for seeking reliefs as claimed in prayer clauses (b) and (c) in
Interim Application No.2104 of 2026, which stood disposed of by the
impugned order.

11.     If such an application is moved by the petitioners, DRT-II shall
consider the same strictly in accordance with law, in an expeditious
manner.




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




Minal Parab                                                               3/3