Bombay High Court
TATYASAHEB SHANKARRAO JAGTAPversusPHOENIX ARC PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
Holding
The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.
Summary
The petitioner, Tatyasaheb Shankarrao Jagtap, filed a writ petition challenging a physical possession order dated 10 June 2026 issued under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner, and the record showed that the order had been fully executed with possession taken over. The court noted that the petition was not circulated and no interim relief was sought. Consequently, the court found that the petitioner had failed to prosecute the petition. The petition was therefore dismissed for non‑prosecution.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of a failure to prosecute a writ petition challenging a SARFAESI Act possession order?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- SARFAESI Act
- Physical possession order
- Writ petition
- Non‑prosecution
- Civil appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:9778-DB
17-WP-3317-2026(C).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3317 OF 2026
Tatyasaheb Shankarrao Jagtap ...Petitioner
Versus
Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. And Others ...Respondents
——————
None for the Petitioner.
Mr. V. G. Badgujar, AGP for the Respondent-State.
——————
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 08, 2026.
P. C. :
1. The Petition challenges the physical possession order dated 10 th
June, 2026 passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”).
2. None appears on behalf of the Petitioner.
3. The record does not indicate that the Petition was circulated and
there are no interim orders which are passed. It appears that the order
has been taken to its logical end and possession has been taken over.
4. Petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]
Jamadar - SL 1 of 1
Checking your session…