Bombay High Court
SABA BABU ALIAS KRISHNA GOVEAKAR AND ANRversusCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA THR ITS AUTH OFFICER/BRANCH MANAGER AND 5 ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed of
Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition because the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
Summary
The petitioners, Saba Babu alias Krishna Goveakar and another, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration of rights under Section 8‑A of the Mundkar Act concerning a house they allege to be a Mundkar house. They claimed that an order dated 11 August 2026 appointing a receiver under Sections 25‑29 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, issued by the DRT, Mumbai, resulted in their dispossession. The petition also noted that the matter was pending adjudication before the Mamlatdar of Pernem. The Court observed that the grievance fell within the ambit of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, which provides an appeal remedy for any person aggrieved by a DRT order. Since an efficacious alternative remedy existed under the SARFAESI Act, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it. The dismissal was ordered on 16 September 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Section 8‑A of the Mundkar Act is maintainable when an alternative appeal remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is available.
- Whether the Court can entertain the petition despite the pending adjudication before the Mamlatdar of Pernem.
Legislation cited
- Mundkar Act — s. 8-A
- Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 — s. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
- SARFAESI Act — s. 18
Subjects
- writ petition
- SARFAESI Act
- alternative remedy
- receiver appointment
- Mundkar Act
- DRT order
- jurisdiction
- dismissal
Judgment
902 WP 1251 2026
vinita
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.1251 OF 2026
SABA BABU ALIAS KRISHNA GOVEAKAR
AND ANR ... PETITIONER
Versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA THR ITS AUTH
OFFICER/BRANCH MANAGER AND 5 ORS ... RESPONDENT
Mr Chaitanya Padgaonkar and Mr Shlok Rai, Advocates for the
Petitioner.
CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES &
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 16th September, 2026
P.C.
1. Upon going through the Petition, it appears that the Petitioner
is seeking a declaration of his rights under Section 8-A of the
Mundkar Act. However, the said claim is admittedly pending
adjudication before the Mamlatdar of Pernem.
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that an Order dated 11.8.2026
Appointing Receiver under Sections 25 to 29 of the Recovery of
Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 was issued by the DRT, Mumbai,
pursuant to which, according to the Petitioner, he was dispossessed
from the house which he claims to be a mundkar house.
3. The grievance raised by the Petitioner in the present Petition
squarely falls within the jurisdiction contemplated under Section
18 of the SARFAESI Act, which provides a remedy of appeal to
Page 1 of 2
16th September, 2026
902 WP 1251 2026
any person aggrieved by any order made by the DRT.
4. In view of the fact that the Petitioner has an efficacious
alternative remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI
Act, we are not inclined to entertain the present Petition.
5. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
Signed by: VINITA VIKAS NAIK
Designation: Private Secretary
Page 2 of 2
Date: 21/09/2026 16:57:36
16th September, 2026
Checking your session…