IRFAN NISAR AHMED KHATRIversusUCO BANK ASSET MANAGEMENT BRANCH AND ORS

                                                                               906_WP_15177_25.doc



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 15177 OF 2025

                      Irfan Nisar Ahmed Khatri                     …             Petitioner
                            vs.
                      UCO Bank, Asset Management Branch and others …             Respondents

                      Mr. Siddharth Samantaray a/w. Mr. Niket Harit, i/b. Manoj Harit & Co. for
                      petitioner.
                      Mr. Hafeezur Rahman for respondent Nos.1 and 2 – bank.
                      Ms. Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP for respondent No.3 – State.


                                                        CORAM :     MANISH PITALE &
                                                                    FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ
                                                        DATE    :   08th MAY, 2026
                      P.C. :


                      .        Heard learned counsel for the parties.


                      2.       The principal prayer in this writ petition concerned extension
                      of time for depositing balance sale consideration, in the backdrop of
                      the fact that the petitioner was the sole bidder in an auction
                      conducted by the respondent No.1 – bank (secured creditor). The
                      petitioner was aggrieved also by the action of the said respondent in
                      unilaterally cancelling the auction sale conducted on 23.07.2025 and
                      even refusing to refund the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). During
                      the pendency of the writ petition, certain events occurred and they
                      were recorded in our orders dated 28.01.2026 and 13.03.2026.


                      3.       One of the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent No.1
                      – bank was that there was a moratorium operating, in the light of
                      pendency of certain proceedings before the National Company Law

         Digitally
         signed by
PRIYA Date:
       PRIYA KAMBLI

KAMBLI 2026.05.08
         14:11:51
                                                                                               1/3
         +0530
                                                          906_WP_15177_25.doc



Tribunal (NCLT), under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 (IBC). It was asserted on behalf of the petitioner that no
such moratorium was operating, in the light of the events that
occurred during the pendency of the writ petition.


4.    In any case, an Interim Application No.1123 of 2026 was filed
by the respondent No.1 – bank in Securitisation Application No.26 of
2026, seeking vacation of an interim order passed by the Debts
Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai (DRT), in the backdrop of the aforesaid
moratorium said to be operating in the matter.


5.    The aforesaid interim application has been taken up for
consideration by the DRT and on 05.05.2026, directions have been
issued for filing notes of arguments, so that the said application can
be heard on 13.05.2026.


6.    In this backdrop, we are of the opinion that the writ petition
can be disposed of by issuing appropriate directions. We propose to
issue such directions, by taking into consideration the amounts
deposited by the petitioner over and above the EMD amount, prior to
filing of the petition. The respondent No.1 – bank has indicated that
if the interim application filed by the DRT results in the interim order
being vacated, immediate steps would be taken for conducting fresh
auction, wherein the petitioner can participate.


7.    Having taken note of the amended pleadings and documents
placed on record, as also events that have occurred during the
pendency of the writ petition, in the interest of justice, the petition is
disposed of by issuing the following directions:




                                                                          2/3
                                                                        906_WP_15177_25.doc



               (a) The DRT is directed to complete the hearing of Interim
                    Application No.1123 of 2026 in Securitisation Application
                    No.26 of 2026 on 13.05.2026 and/or as soon as possible
                    thereafter. In any case, the DRT shall dispose of the said interim
                    application within two weeks from 13.05.2026
               (b) In the event the aforesaid interlocutory application filed by
                    respondent No.1 – bank is allowed and a fresh auction is
                    conducted by the said respondent, the petitioner is at liberty to
                    participate in the same. The amount deposited by the petitioner,
                    totalling ₹ 1.04 crores shall be treated by respondent No.1 –
                    bank as amount towards EMD during the course of the proposed
                    auction.
               (c) Depending upon the result of the auction, the aforesaid amount
                    deposited by the petitioner shall be dealt with by the respondent
                    No.1 – bank. It is made clear if the petitioner is not a successful
                    bidder in such an auction, the aforesaid amount of ₹ 1.04 crores
                    deposited by the petitioner, shall be refunded within a period of
                    four weeks.


               8.    Writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending
               applications, if any, also stand disposed of.




               (FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.)                           (MANISH PITALE, J.)




Priya Kambli



                                                                                        3/3