Bombay High Court
KISHORE SHANTILAL GANDHI AND ORSversusPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
In the absence of any interim injunction restraining the bank, the auction purchasers are entitled to possession of the secured asset, and the borrowers need not be made parties to the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioners, who purchased a secured asset at auction from Punjab National Bank, sought a direction for the bank to hand over physical possession of the asset. The borrowers had previously challenged the bank's actions before the DRT, DRAT and this Court, but their interim relief applications were rejected, and they failed to deposit Rs.3 crore as condition imposed by the Supreme Court for further relief. The Supreme Court’s order left the matter pending, and the bank subsequently took possession of the asset on 9 September 2026. The Court observed that no interim injunction existed to restrain the bank and that the borrowers need not be made parties to this petition. Consequently, the Court directed the bank to hand over possession to the auction purchasers within a week, while removing the borrowers' belongings to a warehouse and issuing notice to the borrowers.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should grant interim relief to the auction purchasers despite the borrowers' failure to deposit the amount stipulated by the Supreme Court.
- Whether the borrowers need to be made parties to the writ petition seeking possession of the secured asset.
- Whether the bank is obligated to hand over physical possession of the secured asset to the auction purchasers.
Subjects
- auction purchase
- secured asset
- possession
- interim relief
- writ petition
- bank
- borrowers
- Supreme Court condition
- high court direction
Judgment
bipin prithiani
1
9-wp-13153.26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13153 OF 2026
Kishore Shantilal Gandhi & Ors. … Petitioners
Versus
Punjab National Bank … Respondent
******
Mr. Charles Desouza a/w Mr. Puneet Gogad, Mr. Rupak
Sawangikar and Ms. Pragati Gothi i/by Puneet Gogad for
Petitioners.
Digitally signed by
BIPIN BIPIN DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER PRITHIANI
PRITHIANI Date: 2026.10.07
Ms. Sudha Koloti a/w Adv. Madhulika for Respondent-Bank.
18:08:20 +0530
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 7th OCTOBER 2026
P.C. :
. This writ petition is filed by the auction purchaser, who
purchased the secured asset in an auction sale conducted by the
respondent-bank (secured creditor). It is an admitted position that
the entire amount was deposited and a sale certificate was issued
in favour of the petitioners, way back on 23 rd November 2020. It
is also undisputed that the sale certificate has been registered.
2. The borrowers had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal
(DRT) challenging the actions undertaken by the respondent-bank.
Upon the challenge failing, the borrowers had approached the
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). Their appeal was
dismissed. The borrowers have filed Writ Petition No. 9746 of
bipin prithiani
2
9-wp-13153.26.doc
2026 to challenge the judgment and order dated 23 rd July 2026
passed by the DRAT. In the said writ petition, by a detailed order
dated 2nd September 2026, this Court rejected interim reliefs. The
said order was challenged on behalf of the borrowers by filing
Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was
disposed of by giving an opportunity to the borrowers to again
approach this Court for interim reliefs, as the actual physical
possession of the secured asset was yet to be taken by the
respondent-bank.
3. On a further application made by the borrowers, on 9 th
September 2026, this Court found that there was no change in
circumstance and therefore, the prayer for interim relief was
rejected.
4. The borrowers again challenged the said order dated 9 th
September 2026 by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 33254
of 2026 before the Supreme Court.
5. By an order dated 21st September 2026, the Supreme Court
disposed of the Special Leave Petition by passing the following
order :
“1. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners.
2. Regardless of the impugned order dated 09.09.2026,
declining ad interim injunction to the petitioners, we are
inclined to grant them one more opportunity. To this effect, if
the petitioners deposit an additional sum of Rs.3 crores with
the High Court of Bombay, without prejudice to the legal
rights of the parties, the High Court may direct the parties to
bipin prithiani
3
9-wp-13153.26.doc
maintain status quo re: subject property comprising the
residential flat.
3. The High Court will entertain the second application
for interim relief only when the petitioners deposit the above-
stated amount with the Registry of the High Court.
4. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
5. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
6. It is an admitted position that the borrowers failed to
deposit the amount of Rs.3 crores, set down as a condition by the
Supreme Court for this Court to consider a further plea for
interim relief that could have been moved by the borrowers. It is
to be noted that in the meanwhile, the physical possession of the
secured asset was taken on 9th September 2026 itself and presently,
the possession of the secured asset is with the respondent-bank.
7. We are of the opinion that since there is no interim relief
from any Court or Tribunal, restraining the handing over of the
physical possession of the secured asset to the petitioners (auction
purchasers), the present writ petition can be disposed of by issuing
appropriate directions to the respondent-bank.
8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent-bank
submits that there are certain belongings of the borrowers lying in
the secured asset, which the respondent-bank will remove and
keep in a warehouse. It is stated that in such a situation, the
physical possession of the secured asset could be made over to the
petitioners.
9. Considering the statement made on behalf of the
bipin prithiani
4
9-wp-13153.26.doc
respondent-bank, the writ petition is disposed of, by directing that
physical possession of the secured asset shall be handed over to the
petitioners (auction purchasers) within one week from today. The
belongings of the borrowers shall be removed by the respondent-
bank and kept in a warehouse. Thereupon, notice shall be issued
to the borrowers to take away their belongings.
10. We record that, in the facts and circumstance of the present
case, the borrowers are not required to be made parties,
particularly because their Writ Petition No. 9746 of 2026 is listed
today before this Court, which is being set down for hearing.
11. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the borrowers in
Writ Petition No.9746 of 2026 made an attempt to raise an
objection in this writ petition for the borrowers being made
parties.
12. But, considering the limited prayer of the petitioners in this
petition being auction purchasers, for a direction to the
respondent-bank to hand over the possession of the secured asset,
which is already in possession of the bank, we find no reason to
postpone passing orders in this writ petition, only on the ground
that the borrowers have not been parties to the same. In any case,
this is a consequential direction. The borrowers will certainly be
heard in their Writ Petition bearing No. 9746 of 2026.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.