PUNJAB NANTIONAL BANKversusPARVEEN PRAKASH MAHTANI

                                   bipin prithiani
                                                                        1
                                                                                                2-wp-2105.26.doc

                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                               ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 2105 OF 2026

                                   Punjab National Bank                                …     Petitioner
                                        Versus
                                   Parveen Prakash Mahtani & Ors.                      …     Respondents
                                                              ******
                                   Ms.Disha Shah a/w Shubhangi Maske i/b Law Focus for Petitioner.
                                   Mr.Nimay Dave i/by Gurdeep Singh Sachar for Respondent No.1.
                                   Ms.Nazia Shaikh, AGP for Respondent No.5-State.
                                                              ******
                                                        CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
                                                                  SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
             Digitally signed by
BIPIN        BIPIN DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER   PRITHIANI



                                                               DATE      : 10th SEPTEMBER 2026
PRITHIANI    Date: 2026.09.10
             17:51:02 +0530




                                   P.C. :

                                   .         This petition was fixed for hearing today. But, in the light of
                                   certain subsequent developments, the learned counsel appearing
                                   for respondent No.1 is instructed to make a statement to the effect
                                   that the said respondent is no longer in a position to take the
                                   benefit of the order dated 1 st January 2025 passed by the Debts
                                   Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) in her favour, confirming
                                   sale of the subject property. It is submitted that due to
                                   bereavement in the family, the respondent No.1 has taken a call
                                   and instructed the Counsel to submit that without going into the
                                   merits of the matter, this Court may allow the writ petition in
                                   terms of prayer clause (a), thereby setting aside the impugned
                                   order of the DRAT. It is submitted that liberty may be reserved for
bipin prithiani
                                          2
                                                                  2-wp-2105.26.doc

the respondent No.1 to participate in an auction that may be
conducted in future, in respect of the subject property.

2.        A perusal of the impugned order shows that the DRAT
allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.1, setting aside the
order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and held that the sale
of the subject property in favour of the respondent No.1 stood
confirmed, subject to the said respondent depositing the entire sale
consideration, within 15 days of the date of the said order.

3.        In this writ petition, on 14th January 2025, a Division Bench
of this Court passed the following order :

          “1. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that
          the copy of Memorandum of Appeal as well as a reply thereto
          are not on record. It would be in the interest of justice to
          peruse the same. Accordingly, the said documents shall be
          placed on record within a period of one week from today.
          2.    It is open for the respondent no.1 to deposit the entire
          sale consideration in terms of the order passed by the Debts
          Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 1st January 2025 which is
          impugned in the writ petition. However, until further orders,
          the sale in favour of the respondent no.1 shall not be
          confirmed. This interim direction is subject to further orders
          in the writ petition and without prejudice to the rights and
          contentions of the parties.
          3.      Stand over to 21st January 2025.”
4.        But,    in   the   light   of       the   subsequent   events,     the
aforementioned instructions have been given to the learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.1. In that light, keeping the
question raised in this petition on merits open for consideration in
an appropriate matter, the writ petition is allowed in terms of
bipin prithiani
                                      3
                                                              2-wp-2105.26.doc

prayer clause (a). Consequently, the impugned order passed by the
DRAT is quashed and set aside.

5.        It is noted that the earnest money deposited by the
respondent No.1 was already refunded to her by the petitioner-
bank.

6.        Liberty is reserved for respondent No.1 to participate in an
auction that may be conducted in future by the petitioner-bank, in
respect of the subject property.

7.        Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.



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