Bombay High Court

HISHAMUDDIN ABDUL KADIR TANKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. G. P. AND ORS

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11 September 2024 that was passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The petition alleged that the order was erroneous and noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the same Act. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner, and no interim relief was sought during the proceedings. The court observed that the proceedings had effectively reached their logical conclusion without any further action by the petitioner. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition on the ground of non‑prosecution, holding that a petition cannot be entertained when the petitioner fails to pursue it.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition challenging an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be entertained when the petitioner does not appear or prosecute the petition.

Legislation cited

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — s. 14, 17

Subjects

SARFAESI Act
Section 14
Section 17
writ petition
non‑prosecution
dismissal

Judgment

2026:BHC-KOL:9410-DB

12-WP-7905-2025(C).doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 7905 OF 2025

Hishamuddin Abdul Kadir Tanke ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents
——————
None for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vikas M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 30, 2026.
P. C. :

1. The Petition impugns the order dated 11 th September, 2024,

passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

(“SARFAESI Act”). The Petitioner has an alternate remedy under

Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

2. None appears on behalf of the Petitioner.

3. There is no interim order passed in the present case, and it

appears that the proceedings have been taken to its logical end. The

Petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Jamadar - SL 1 of 1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…