Bombay High Court
BHARATI VIDYANAND MULIKversusTHE AUTHORIZED OFFICER SARASWAT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner failed to arrange the required funds, and the interim order is terminated.
Summary
Bharati Vidyanand Mulik filed a writ petition seeking to restrain Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited from taking physical possession of her flat, which was the secured asset for a defaulted loan. The High Court initially granted an interim order and, upon extensions, directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.10 lakhs with the bank to continue the protection. The petitioner later admitted she could not arrange any further funds despite earlier assurances. The bank indicated that, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, it would issue notice before proceeding with enforcement. Considering the petitioner’s inability to meet the financial condition and the vacant status of the property, the Court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to approach the bank in the future if she secures funds.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner must deposit a specified amount to continue the interim order restraining possession of the secured asset
- Whether the court can dismiss a writ petition when the petitioner fails to arrange funds to satisfy the bank’s claim
- Application of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, in the enforcement of security interest against the petitioner
Legislation cited
Subjects
- loan default
- secured asset
- interim relief
- SARFAESI Act
- writ petition
- bank possession
- deposit requirement
Judgment
924_WP_14110_25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 14110 OF 2025
Bharati Vidyanand Mulik … Petitioner
vs.
The Authorized Officer,
Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited and others … Respondents
Mr. Kaustubh Kandpile a/w. Mr. Jayesh Kalebere for petitioner.
Mr. Nikhil Rajani (through VC), i/b. V. Deshpande & Co. for respondent
No.1 – bank.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
. In this petition, this Court had shown indulgence by
entertaining the same at the behest of the petitioner, in the peculiar
facts and circumstances noted in the order dated 08.04.2026, when
notice was issued. Subsequently, an interim order was granted,
restraining respondent No.1 – bank from taking physical possession
of the subject property.
2. As an admitted position on fact, it was also noted that even the
petitioner is not in possession of the subject property. But, this Court
continued to show indulgence in the subsequent orders on
representation made by the petitioner that she would take efforts to
arrange for funds from her friends and relatives to repay the
outstanding amount due and payable to respondent No.1 – bank. The
interim order was continued from time to time.
Digitally signed
by PRIYA
PRIYA KAMBLI
KAMBLI Date:
2026.09.29
18:54:50 +0530 1/3
924_WP_14110_25.doc
3. On 22.09.2026, this Court passed the following order:
‘. This petition has been adjourned from time to time
to enable the petitioner to arrange for funds, so as
to close the loan account. In the order dated 6th
August 2026, the respondent No.1-bank had
informed that as on 9th July 2026, the amount due
was Rs.23,20,633/-.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on
instructions, makes a statement that till date, the
petitioner has been able to arrange for about Rs.12
lakhs and that she would need further time to
arrange for the balance amount and therefore, this
Court may consider granting further time.
3. We are of the opinion that even if further time is to
be granted to the petitioner, she should show her
bonafide by depositing specific amount for
continuation of the interim order. We are of the
opinion that such a direction is necessitated in the
face of the admitted fact that the secured asset,
being a flat, is presently vacant and it is not
occupied even by the petitioner herself. We had
indicated that the petitioner can be directed to
deposit the amount of Rs.10 lakhs with the
respondent No.1-bank for continuation of the
interim order, while she arranges for the balance
amount.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks short
adjournment in this regard.
5. List on 29th September 2026, in the supplementary
list.
6. The interim order shall continue to operate till
then.’
4. Today, when the petition is taken up as directed in the
supplementary list, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on
instructions, makes a statement that the petitioner is unable to
arrange for any further amount, as her friends and relatives indicated
that they will not be able to help her any longer. It is obvious that the
2/3
924_WP_14110_25.doc
petitioner would not be able to make good the amount payable to
respondent No.1 – bank.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this
situation, if this Court is no longer inclined to entertain the present
petition, it may be indicated that in future, if the petitioner is able to
arrange for funds, it may be open for her to approach respondent
No.1 – bank to settle the loan account, so that consequential relief
can follow.
6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 – bank
submits that if the petitioner is able to arrange for funds in future,
she can approach the said respondent. It is indicated that in any
event, as per law, notice will be issued before the said respondent
proceeds to take further steps under the provisions of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
8. It is made clear that dismissal of the writ petition will not
come in the way of the petitioner approaching respondent No.1 –
bank in future, in case funds are arranged for repayment of dues of
the said respondent.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Priya Kambli
3/3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.