Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

PANKAJ R. VERMAversusICICI BANK THROUGH AUTHORISED OFFICER AND ANR

Decided
Disposal
Dismissed

Holding

The Court held that the petitioner’s statutory remedies under Sections 17 and 18 preclude the maintenance of the writ petition, and therefore dismissed the petition.

Summary

Petitioner Pankaj R. Verma filed a writ petition challenging a statutory notice issued by ICICI Bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, alleging it and the subsequent possession notice were illegal. The Court observed that the petitioner, as an aggrieved borrower, has specific remedies under Section 17 of the Act and can approach the appellate tribunal under Section 18, rendering the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 inappropriate. The respondent bank demonstrated that it had complied with the procedural requirements of Section 13(4) and Section 14, leading to possession, auction, and issuance of a sale certificate to the purchaser. Given the completion of these statutory steps, the Court found no basis to entertain the writ. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to challenge a notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act.
  • Whether the petitioner has alternative statutory remedies under Sections 17 and 18 of the Securitisation Act that preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
  • Whether the possession and subsequent auction of the property complied with the procedural requirements of the Securitisation Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Article 226
  • writ jurisdiction
  • Securitisation Act
  • statutory notice
  • possession notice
  • auction
  • Section 13
  • Section 17
  • Section 18
  • remedial provisions

Judgment

                                                                                            6_WP_1601_25.doc



                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                               WRIT PETITION NO. 1601 OF 2025

                             Pankaj R. Verma                                       …       Petitioner
                                   vs.
                             ICICI Bank, Through authorised officer & anr.         …       Respondents

                             Mr. Nikhil Singh for petitioner.
                             Ms. Shyamli Hajela, i/b. H and M Legal Associates for respondent No.1-
                             bank.
                             Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for respondent No.2-State.

                                                                CORAM :       MANISH PITALE &
                                                                              SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
                                                                DATE     :    28th JANUARY, 2026
                             P.C. :

                             .        Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.


                             2.       By this petition, the petitioner is seeking to challenge statutory
                             notice dated 14.05.2024 issued under Section 13(2) of the
                             Securitisation     and    Reconstruction    of    Financial   Assets     and
                             Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act). It is
                             the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid notice and the
                             consequent possession notice are all bad in law, as he has a very
                             good case on merits.


                             3.       We find that such aggrieved persons, in this case the borrower
                             himself, has sufficient remedy available under Section 17 of the
                             Securitisation Act and thereafter, to approach the appellate tribunal
                             under Section 18 thereof. In the face of such statutory remedies
                             available to the petitioner, there is no specific ground made out for
                             this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
                             Constitution of India.
          Digitally signed
          by PRIYA
PRIYA KAMBLI
KAMBLI Date:
       2026.01.29
          10:48:13 +0530

                                                                                                         1/2
                                                                       6_WP_1601_25.doc




               4.    In any case, the learned counsel for appearing for respondent
               No.1-bank informs this Court that pursuant to the impugned notice,
               further necessary steps under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act
               and thereafter, approaching the Magistrate under Section 14 thereof,
               were already undertaken. The possession was taken and the property
               was put to auction. The auction purchaser has already deposited the
               amount. The sale certificate is already issued and the auction
               purchaser is very much in possession of the property.


               5.    In such a situation, there is no question of exercising writ
               jurisdiction in favour of such petitioner.


               6.    The writ petition is dismissed.




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




Priya Kambli




                                                                                    2/2


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.