Bombay High Court

IDFC FIRST BANK LTD. AND ANRversusVINOD DHAKU GHUDEKAR AND ORS

Decided: 27 February 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: AMIT BORKAR

Holding

The exercise of power under Rule 107(d-1)(vi) of the MCS Rules is ministerial and non‑discretionary, rendering the writ petition non‑maintainable.

Summary

The petitioners, IDFC First Bank Ltd and others, claimed to be prior mortgagees and challenged an order dated 20 September 2025 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Rule 107(d-1)(vi) of the MCS Rules. They argued that the order should not have been passed without giving them an opportunity to be heard. The Court referred to the precedent Amit Prakash Jori & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (W.P. No.1331 of 2025) which held that the power under Rule 107(d-1)(vi) is purely executory and ministerial, leaving no discretion to the magistrate. Consequently, the petition was deemed non‑maintainable as the magistrate’s order could not be subject to judicial review. The Court dismissed the writ petition, indicating that the petitioners may pursue any other appropriate legal remedy.

Issues considered

Whether the order passed under Rule 107(d-1)(vi) of the MCS Rules requires a hearing for prior mortgagees.
Whether the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has discretionary power in exercising Rule 107(d-1)(vi).
Whether the writ petition challenging such an order is maintainable.

Subjects

mortgage
prior mortgagee
executory order
ministerial discretion
judicial review
MCS Rules
writ petition

Judgment

                                                                         906-WP-2854-26.doc



                                                                                Sayali


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SAYALI                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
DEEPAK
UPASANI
                                    WRIT PETITION NO.2854 OF 2026
Digitally signed
by SAYALI
DEEPAK
UPASANI
Date: 2026.02.27   IDFC First Bank Ltd and Others               … Petitioners
17:51:17 +0530
                               V/s.
                   Vinod Dhaku Ghudekar and Others              … Respondents

                   Mr. Nikhil Rajani i/b M/s. V. Deshpande, for
                   Petitioners.
                   Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for State-Respondent No. 5.
                   Mr. Sonu Randive, for Respondent no. 3.



                                                CORAM     : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                DATED     : FEBRUARY 27, 2026

                   P.C.:

                   1.      The challenge in this petition arises out of the order dated
                   20th September, 2025, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial
                   Magistrate in the exercise of power under Rule 107(d-1)(vi) of
                   MCS Rules.

                   2.      The petitioners claim to be prior mortgagees and therefore,
                   according to me, the order could not have been passed without
                   giving an opportunity to the petitioner. However, this Court, in
                   the case of Amit Prakash Jori & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra
                   & Ors, Writ Petition No.1331 of 2025 decided on 4 February


                                                     1
                                                    906-WP-2854-26.doc


2025, has already held that the exercise of power under Rule
107(d-1)(vi) of MCS Rules is essentially executory order and the
exercise of power by the Judicial Magistrate is ministerial. He
does not have the discretion to pass such an order; therefore, the
petition need not be entertained.

3.    Hence, the petition cannot be entertained; however, it shall
be open to the petitioner to adopt any appropriate remedy
available in the law.

4.    The writ petition stands dismissed.



                                            (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…