Bombay High Court

CHAITANYA INDUSTRIES AND ORSversusPUNE MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND ORS

Disposal: Allowed To be withdrawn
Bench: ACTING NANDESH SHANKARRAO DESHPANDE

Holding

The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn on the petitioners' instructions.

Summary

The petitioners, M/s. Chaitanya Industries and others, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking relief against an order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, which they had also challenged before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. They later expressed a desire to withdraw the writ petition, citing urgency and the pending DRT proceedings. The Court, after noting the petitioners' request, disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn, while allowing the petitioners' contentions to remain alive in the DRT case. No substantive merits of the petition were adjudicated. The order reflects the procedural rule that a petition can be withdrawn at the petitioner's request.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition challenging the District Magistrate's order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be withdrawn by the petitioners.
Effect of withdrawal of the writ petition on the parallel proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Legislation cited

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — s. 14

Subjects

writ petition
SARFAESI Act
withdrawal
Debt Recovery Tribunal
secured creditor
District Magistrate

Judgment

                                                              506 wp-3069-2026.odt




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 3069 OF 2026

M/s. Chaitanya Industries and Others.                    ….Petitioners
            Versus
Pune Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd and Others.               ….Respondents

                                   ----
Mr. Narendra V. Sharma (thr. V.C.) and Mr. Aditya S. Ghatge for the
Petitioner.
Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. GP for the Respondent-State.
                                   ----

                              CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ.
                                               &
                                      NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.

                              DATE     : JULY 10, 2026

P.C. :-

1.             Not on board. Since the Petitioners expressed grave urgency,

this matter was taken on production board.

2.             The Petitioners have already approached the Debts Recovery

Tribunal by preferring a proceeding for challenging the order passed by

the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest

Act, 2002. The ground for coming to this Court is that the secured debtor

has moved one more application before the District Magistrate.

3.             We expressed disinclination. Therefore, the learned Advocate

Patil-SR.                             1 of 2
                                                             506 wp-3069-2026.odt




for the Petitioners submits, on instructions, that the Petitioners desire to

withdraw this Petition.

4.          In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off as withdrawn

on instructions. All contentions of the Petitioners are kept open in the

proceedings pending before the Tribunal.



(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)                    (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




Patil-SR.                            2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…