Bombay High Court
MAHESH HIRALAL KUNKLOLversusSPECIAL RECOVERY OFFICER THRO. THE GANESH SAHAKARI BANK LTD.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
The court held that the bank is lawfully entitled to recover the loan amount from the guarantor's assets and that there is no ground for interfering with the Special Recovery Officer's order.
Summary
The petitioner, Mahesh Hiralal Kunklol, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar that dismissed his revision application and upheld the Special Recovery Officer's order. The petitioner argued that the bank had attached his bank account despite the borrowers having already mortgaged a substantial asset, and that the recovery action was selective. The respondents contended that the mortgaged asset had also been attached and that the bank was pursuing recovery from all assets of the borrowers and guarantors, including the petitioner. The court observed that there was no dispute that the petitioner had guaranteed the loan and that the bank was entitled to recover the dues from him. Consequently, the court found no merit in the petitioner's claim of selective action and held that the order should not be interfered with. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the attachment of the petitioner's bank account by the Special Recovery Officer is lawful when the borrowers' mortgaged asset has already been attached.
- Whether the bank is entitled to recover the loan amount from the guarantor's assets in addition to the borrowers' assets.
Subjects
- guarantor
- recovery certificate
- attachment of bank account
- mortgage
- writ petition
- special recovery officer
- bank loan
Judgment
k 1/2 3 wp 5038.26 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5038 OF 2026
Mahesh Hiralal Kunklol ....Petitioner
V/S
Special Recovery Of cer
through the Ganesh Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents
_________
Mr. Sarvesh Deshpande with Mr. Bharat Gadhavi and Mr. Aniket Shitole
for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vilas B. Tapkir with Ms. Mrunmayi Khambete for Respondent Nos.1
and 2.
Ms. M.S. Srivastava, AGP for Respondent Nos.6 and 7/State.
__________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 25 JUNE 2026.
P.C.:
1. By this Petition, Petitioner has challenged order dated 23
September 2025 passed by Divisional Joint Registrar dismissing Revision
Application No.110 of 2025 and con rming the order dated 14 February
2025 passed by the Special Recovery Of cer.
2. I have heard Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. Tapkir, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2. I have considered the submissions canvassed by
them.
3. The main grouse of the Petitioner is that the Respondent Nos.3
and 4 (borrowers) have already mortgaged a substantial asset with the
katkam Page No. 1 of 2
k 2/2 3 wp 5038.26 as.doc
Respondent No.2-Bank and instead of recovery of the outstanding loan
amount by auctioning the said asset, the Bank’s Recovery Of cer has
unnecessarily attached the Bank account of the Petitioner. However,
Mr. Tapkir submits that even the mortgaged asset of the borrowers has
been attached by the Bank for recovery of amount covered by the
Recovery Certi cate. He submits that an action is being initiated for
recovery of the due amount from all possible assets of the borrowers and
guarantors. In that view of the matter, the apprehension sought to be
expressed on behalf of the Petitioner about selective action being
initiated against him does not appear to be correct. There is no dispute
to the position that the Petitioner has guaranteed repayment of loan
availed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4. In that view of the matter,
Respondent No.2-Bank is entitled to recover the amount due and
payable by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 from the Petitioner by taking all
possible steps. No interference is therefore warranted in the impugned
order. Writ Petition is rejected. Petitioner would be at liberty to
approach the Recovery Of cer in the event the outstanding loan amount
is satis ed by dealing with assets of the borrowers.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
Digitally signed
by
SUDARSHAN
SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM
RAJALINGAM KATKAM
KATKAM Date:
2026.06.29
18:18:53
+0530
katkam Page No. 2 of 2
Checking your session…