Bombay High Court
ARUN KOTHARIversusUNION OF INDIA THR AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition cannot be entertained as the contentions can and must be raised in the pending appeal before the Appellate Authority.
Summary
The petitioner, Arun Kothari, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated 10 October 2025 while an appeal against the same order was already pending before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner sought to raise additional factual contentions, including documents indicating ownership of gold and a request that MMTC PAMP India Pvt. Ltd. confirm serial numbers of receipts. The High Court held that such contentions should be raised in the pending appeal and not through a fresh writ petition, as they require factual adjudication. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the writ petition and directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal expeditiously within 12 weeks. The petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition can be entertained when the same matter is pending before an Appellate Authority.
- Whether the High Court can entertain fresh factual contentions in a writ petition that are suitable for adjudication in the pending appeal.
Subjects
- writ petition
- appellate jurisdiction
- pendency of appeal
- jurisdiction
- procedural law
- order-in-original
- fact-finding
Judgment
27-WP-3856-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3856 OF 2026
Mr. Arun Kothari .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. .....Respondents
.....
Mr. Vijay Advani a/w Adv. A. M. Sachwani, Mr. Rajesh Shah and Mr.
Ganesh Patil, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Sangeeta Yadav i/b Mr. Jitendra Mishra, for the Respondent
No.2.
Mr. Karan Adik a/w Ms. Niyati Mankad, for the Respondent No.3.
Mr. Yash B. a/w Mr. Rehaan Shaikh, for the Respondent No.4.
..…
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 7th OCTOBER 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. Against the Order-in-Original dated 10 th October, 2025
which is at Exhibit ‘G’ of the Petition, the Petitioner has already filed
an Appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appeal is pending.
Manisha 1/3
Digitally signed by
MANISHA MANISHA
BALKRISHNA
BALKRISHNA TALEKAR
TALEKAR Date: 2026.10.08
17:35:12 +0530
27-WP-3856-2026.doc
During pendency of the Appeal, the present Petition is filed. It is the
contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the present
Petition be entertained as there are documents to indicate that the
gold in question belongs to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that
M/s. MMTC PAMP INDIA PVT. LTD. is a party-Respondent No.4 who
can confirm the Serial Number of the receipts which would clearly
indicate that the gold is manufactured in India.
3. In our view, all these contentions can be raised in the
pending Appeal before the Appellate Authority, is which the
Appellate Authority shall consider the same on its own merits in
accordance with law. The contentions raised by the Petitioner can
very well be taken up and canvassed in the Appeal which has been
filed before the Appellate Authority. We are not inclined to entertain
the present Petition as the contentions of the Petitioner requires
adjudication on facts.
4. The Appellate Authority is requested to decide the Appeal
filed by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case
within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this
Order.
Manisha 2/3
27-WP-3856-2026.doc
5. Liberty to make Application/s seeking appropriate directions
against the Respondent No.4 or any other concerned person/
Authority which the Appellate Authority shall obviously look into
and pass appropriate Order thereon.
6. In view of above, Writ Petition No.3856 of 2026 stands
disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Manisha 3/3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.