Bombay High Court
VAIBHAV PANDHARINATH PATILversusCANARA BANK AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The DRT should not grant circulation beyond the date fixed for physical possession, and the High Court may direct the DRT to hear the application urgently and defer possession to allow consideration of interim relief.
Summary
The petitioner, a third party, filed a securitisation application (Diary No. 1679 of 2026) with interim relief before the Debt Recovery Tribunal‑III (DRT‑III), Mumbai, on 12 September 2026. Although circulation was initially granted for 25 September, the application was not listed, and a subsequent circulation was set for 1 October, which fell after the court‑commissioner’s scheduled physical possession of the secured asset on 30 September at 11:00 a.m. The petitioner argued that this delay would render the interim relief ineffective. The High Court held that granting circulation beyond the possession date defeats the purpose of interim relief and unduly burdens the writ court. Consequently, the Court directed the in‑charge DRT‑II to hear the application urgently on 30 September and to defer the physical possession to 4:00 p.m. the same day, without expressing any view on the merits. The rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
Issues considered
- When may a Debt Recovery Tribunal grant circulation for an application seeking interim relief relative to the scheduled date of physical possession of the secured asset?
- Whether the High Court can direct the DRT to hear the application urgently and defer the physical possession to enable consideration of interim relief.
Subjects
- writ petition
- interim relief
- Debt Recovery Tribunal
- physical possession
- securitisation application
- urgent hearing
- circulation order
Judgment
bipin prithiani
1
502-wp-12859.26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12859 OF 2026
Vaibhav Pandharinath Patil … Petitioner
Versus
Canara Bank & Ors. … Respondents
Digitally signed by
******
Mr. Sunil M. Kadam a/w Mr. Abhijit M. Pawar for Petitioner.
BIPIN BIPIN DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER PRITHIANI
PRITHIANI Date: 2026.09.29
18:38:44 +0530
Mr. O. A. Das a/w Mr. Sudhir Gupta for Respondent No.1-Bank.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
. This writ petition has been urgently listed in the production
board, in the light of mentioning in the morning. It was brought to
our notice that although the petitioner (third party) filed
Securitisation Application (Diary) No. 1679 of 2026 along with
Interim Application therein, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-
III (DRT-III), Mumbai on 12th September 2026 and circulation was
granted for 25th September 2026, the applications could not be
listed for consideration before the DRT-III, Mumbai. It is brought
to our notice that as per notice issued by the Court Commissioner
dated 9th September 2026, the exercise of taking physical
possession of the subject property (secured asset) is fixed for
tomorrow i.e. 30th September 2026. But, upon a praecipe being
moved before the DRT-III on 25th September 2026, in the light of
bipin prithiani
2
502-wp-12859.26.doc
the applications not being listed on the said date, the DRT-III has
granted circulation for 1st October 2026. The said date is beyond
the date fixed for taking physical possession and on that ground, it
is urged that the application for interim relief filed before the
DRT-III would itself be rendered infructuous, if the physical
possession is taken tomorrow at 11:00 a.m.
2. We are of the opinion that when the petitioner had
repeatedly pointed out in the praecipes moved before the DRT-III,
Mumbai that the exercise of taking physical possession is fixed for
tomorrow i.e. 30th September 2026 at 11:00 a.m., urgent
circulation and listing ought to have been granted at least a day
prior or on the date when such exercise of taking physical
possession is to be undertaken. Granting circulation beyond the
date fixed for taking physical possession obviously renders the
application for interim relief infructuous. For such small reasons,
litigants are forced to rush to the writ Court, unnecessarily
burdening the docket of the writ Court. We are constrained to
observe that the DRT ought not to grant circulation in such
matters beyond the date fixed for taking physical possession of the
secured asset. The least that can be done is listing the application
in such a manner that an opportunity is available to the aggrieved
person to make out a case, if at all, for granting ad-interim/interim
relief. The reply tendered on behalf of the respondent-bank is
taken on record.
3. In view of the above, we dispose of the writ petition by
bipin prithiani
3
502-wp-12859.26.doc
directing Debts Recovery Tribunal-II (DRT-II), Mumbai, in-charge
of DRT-III, Mumbai to take up Securitisation Application (Diary)
No. 1679 of 2026, along with Interim Applications filed therein,
by the petitioner, for urgent consideration and hearing tomorrow
morning i.e. on 30th September 2026. The DRT-II shall consider
the question of ad-interim/interim relief on its own merits,
tomorrow itself. In that light, we further direct that the exercise of
taking physical possession tomorrow i.e. on 30 th September 2026
at 11:00 a.m. shall stand deferred to 4:00 p.m. tomorrow. This
would afford an opportunity to DRT-II, Mumbai to grant hearing
to the parties in the applications filed by the petitioner.
4. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on
the merits of the matter. The DRT-II, in-charge of DRT-III, shall
not be influenced by the order passed in this writ petition.
5. The rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.