Bombay High Court
ASHOK SHRIPAT BHARATIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE AND FOREST DEPARTMENT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Shripat Bharati, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an order passed by a Competent Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner argued that the order was erroneous and sought relief from the High Court. The Court noted that the Securitisation Act provides a specific statutory remedy under Section 17, allowing aggrieved parties to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Citing Supreme Court precedents (Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors), the Court held that when an alternative, efficacious statutory remedy exists, writ courts should not entertain the petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of maintainability.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when a specific statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act is available.
- Whether the order passed by the Competent Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act can be challenged directly before the High Court.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Article 226
- writ jurisdiction
- statutory remedy
- Securitisation Act
- Debts Recovery Tribunal
- alternative remedy
- petition dismissal
Judgment
bipin prithiani
1
3-wp-6689.26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6689 OF 2026
Ashok Shripat Bharati … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
******
Ms. Poonam Pal i/by Mr. Sachin Hande for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP for Respondent-State.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 12th JUNE 2026
P.C. :
. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order
passed by the Competent Magistrate under Section 14 of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act).
2. A statutory remedy is available to the petitioner for
approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17
of the Securitisation Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Union
Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 110,
has categorically laid down that the writ Court ought not to
entertain petitions where such statutory, alternative, efficacious
remedy is available to the aggrieved persons.
3. The said position of law has been reiterated in a number of
Digitally signed
by BIPIN
BIPIN DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER PRITHIANI
PRITHIANI Date:
2026.06.12
18:49:56 +0530
bipin prithiani
2
3-wp-6689.26.doc
judgments, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
Celir LLP vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited & Ors.,
(2024) 2 SCC 1. As a matter of fact, in the said judgment, the
Supreme Court observed that despite the position of law being
reiterated, High Courts have continued to exercise writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
ignoring statutory remedies under the Securitisation Act, which
cannot be countenanced.
4. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the writ
petition is dismissed.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Checking your session…