ANIL ANKUSH PAWAR AND ANRversusTHE AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ORS

                                                                        6-WP-15718-2025.DOC



 PURTI                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 PRASAD
 PARAB                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
PURTI PRASAD
PARAB
Date: 2026.03.05
11:02:18 +0530

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 15718 OF 2025

     Anil Ankush Pawar and Anr.                                    …Petitioners
           Versus
     The Authorized Officer
     Union Bank of India and Ors.                                  …Respondents
                                       _______
     Mr. Shadab Jan i/b Mr. Parth P. Shah for the Petitioners.

     Mr. Nainesh Amin (Through V.C.) a/w Ms. Priyam Amin i/b N.N. Amin and
     Co. for Respondent No.1.

     Mr. Ronak Shah a/w Mr. Mohanish Satwilkar for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
                                   _______

                                    CORAM:        MANISH PITALE &
                                                  SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

                                    DATE:         4th MARCH 2026

     P.C.

     1.               Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.       The Petitioners are
     auction purchasers who are aggrieved by an order dated 14 th May 2025
     passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (DRAT).

     2.               The Appeal before the DRAT has been filed by Respondent Nos. 2
     and 3 (original borrowers). The Appeal challenges an order dated 8 th April
     2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune (DRT) whereby
     Miscellaneous Application filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for
     condonation of delay in filing Securitization Application was dismissed.

     3.               In the Appeal filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, they filed an
     Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit. Provisio to Section 18 of the
     Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
     Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as “Securitisation Act”)



                                         Page 1 of 6
     Purti Parab
                                                                 6-WP-15718-2025.DOC



mandates pre-deposit of 25% to 50% of the amount due as a pre-condition
for entertaining an Appeal. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also filed an
Application for interim relief in the Appeal, apart from filing the aforesaid
Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit.

4.            The impugned order considered and disposed of only the
Application for waiver for pre-deposit. The grievance of the Petitioners is
that while hearing and disposing of the said Application, the DRAT not only
directed the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to deposit 40% of the amount due
towards pre-deposit, but without recording any reasons, the DRAT
proceeded to grant an order restraining the Petitioners from creating third
party interest or effecting change in revenue records with regard to
ownership of the property from the date of deposit till the next date of
hearing.

5.            Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that such a direction
could not have been issued in the impugned order, which dealt with only
the Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit. It was submitted that the
well known factors that are required to be considered for granting or
refusing interim relief were not even discussed. An attempt was made to
demonstrate how the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 do not have any case even
on merits in the pending Appeal. In any case, it was submitted that an
Application for interim relief is still pending and by way of the impugned
order the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are enjoying interim relief, which could
not have been granted.

6.            Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 – Bank
supported the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the
Petitioners. It was submitted that DRAT could not have issued the interim
direction in the impugned order.




                                  Page 2 of 6
Purti Parab
                                                                     6-WP-15718-2025.DOC



7.            Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
(original borrowers) vehemently opposed the present Petition. He
submitted that the interim direction in the impugned order was passed as
far back on 14th May 2025.          The same has been operating till date.
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not sought to adjourn the proceedings
before the DRAT in any manner and now the proceedings are coming up on
2nd April 2026. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the Petitioners
cannot rely upon the merits of the matter and seek to impress this Court to
interfere with the impugned order.              It is submitted that the protection
granted to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 ought to continue at least till the
next date of listing before the DRAT and that appropriate directions for
time bound disposal of the pending Appeal and Application can be issued
by this Court in the interest of justice.

8.            We find on perusal of the impugned order that it suffers from a
serious procedural infirmity. The Application considered and decided in
the impugned order dated 14 th May 2025 was only the Application seeking
waiver of pre-deposit under Section 18 of the Securitisation Act. The only
prayer made on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the DRAT was
for such waiver on the basis of statements made in the said Application.
While considering the said Application the DRAT discussed the rival
submissions, made certain observations and thereupon found that the
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were required to deposit 40% of the amount due
and that complete waiver from pre-deposit was not warranted. Having
reached the said conclusion the DRAT was expected to issue a positive
direction to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to deposit such 40% amount towards
pre-deposit so that the Appeal could be registered and then take up the
Application for interim relief and the Appeal for further consideration.

9.            Instead, we find that after issuing such a positive direction to
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to deposit 40% of the amount due, failing which


                                  Page 3 of 6
Purti Parab
                                                                         6-WP-15718-2025.DOC



the Appeal would stand rejected, in the next paragraph, without any
discussion on the reasons for giving the blanket interim direction, it was
observed as follows :

              “On deposit of Rs.75,83,600/- on or before 21.5.2025, respondents
              are restrained from creating 3rd party interest effecting change in
              revenue records with regard to ownership of the property from the
              date of deposit till next date of hearing”.



10.           We find that the aforesaid approach adopted by the DRAT suffers
from serious procedural irregularity and infirmity.               It appears that the
DRAT proceeded on an assumption that the moment a pre-deposit direction
was issued in an Application seeking waiver thereof, the interim relief
would follow as a matter of course upon the amount so directed to be
deposited, in fact being deposited by the Appellants (Respondent Nos.2
and 3 herein). We find that the approach of the DRAT is unsustainable.

11.           It is undisputed that an Application for interim relief is still
pending in the Appeal filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3. All that the DRAT
could have directed was that the moment such pre-deposit of 40% amount
was made the Appeal would stand registered. As a matter of fact, in the
subsequent order dated 28th May 2025 the DRAT issued a direction to
number the Appeal, having taken note of the fact that Respondent Nos. 2
and 3 had indeed deposited 40% of the amount.

12.           This further shows the error committed by the DRAT while
casually granting such a blanket interim direction, to the prejudice of the
Petitioners who are the auction purchasers. Only on this short ground we
are inclined to interfere with the impugned order to the extent that the
said interim direction needs to be set aside.

13.           We are of the opinion that the DRAT should have considered the
aspect of interim relief by hearing parties on the pending application for



                                      Page 4 of 6
Purti Parab
                                                                 6-WP-15718-2025.DOC



interim relief filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.          All the required
parameters ought to be considered including the factors pertaining to
prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss being
suffered by the applicants, in the event interim reliefs are not granted. No
such consideration is found in the impugned order and therefore, we are
inclined to interfere to the limited extent indicated herein above.

14.           We are restraining ourselves for not making any observations on
the rival submissions made with regard to the merits of the matter. The
said aspects are pending consideration before the DRAT in the Appeal as
well as the Application for interim relief.

15.           In view of the above, the above quoted direction issued against
the Petitioners in the impugned order dated 14 th May 2025 is quashed and
set aside. Rest of the order shall remain as it is.

16.           The DRAT is directed to take up the Application for interim relief
filed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 2 nd April 2026. At this stage we
are informed that on the said date the Appeal and the Application for
interim relief are due to be listed before the Registrar, DRAT. We direct that
the DRAT shall take up the Appeal alongwith the Application for interim
relief on the said date, i.e., on 2 nd April 2026. The Petitioners as well as
Respondent No.1 - Bank are directed to file their reply affidavits in the said
Application for interim relief before 2 nd April 2026 with advance copies
being served upon Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

17.           The DRAT shall make an endeavour to decide the said
Application for interim relief on 2 nd April 2026 itself or atleast within two
weeks thereafter.

18.           It is made clear that this Court has not expressed its opinion on
the merits of the contentions of the rival parties and that the impugned



                                   Page 5 of 6
Purti Parab
                                                                  6-WP-15718-2025.DOC



order has been interfered with in the aforesaid manner, only on the ground
of serious procedural infirmity found in the impugned order.

19.           Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.

20.           Pending Applications, if any, also stands disposed of.




(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)                              (MANISH PITALE, J.)




                                   Page 6 of 6
Purti Parab