Bombay High Court

STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORYversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: VIBHA KANKANWADI HITEN S VENEGAVKAR

Holding

The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to decide on the compromise and approach the Tahsildar thereafter, without ordering immediate possession.

Summary

The State Bank of India filed a writ petition seeking an order directing the Tahsildar to execute a 2019 order under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and to hand over possession of a secured asset. The bank indicated that the borrower had partially complied with a compromise proposal and was awaiting approval, but also warned that it would seek possession if the remaining amount was not paid. The Tahsildar attempted to hand over possession on 10 February 2026, but the bank's authorized officer was absent. The court observed that the bank must decide whether to proceed with the compromise or continue with the petition and should approach the Tahsildar again if the compromise is accepted. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition without ordering immediate possession.

Issues considered

Whether the Tahsildar should be directed to execute the 2019 order for possession despite ongoing compromise negotiations.
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed pending the bank's decision on the compromise proposal.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

writ petition
possession
compromise proposal
secured asset
Securitization Act
Tahsildar
enforcement of security interest

Judgment

                                  -1-
                                                          wp90.26.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                14 WRIT PETITION NO. 90 OF 2026

State Bank of India
Through Its Authorized Signatory                 ….Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & others                …..Respondents

Mr. S. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for the State.

                              CORAM : SMT VIBHA KANKANWADI
                                      & HITEN S VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
                             DATE       : 4th MARCH, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.    Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has placed on record a

communication by the Petitioner to the Tahsildar and Executive

Magistrate, Gangakhed, wherein it is informed to the Tahsildar that

the borrower has submitted a compromise proposal and it appears

that even half of the amount has also been paid. It is submitted that

the said compromise proposal has been sent to the appropriate

authority for approval and it is waiting for further communication

from the appropriate authority.



2.    The said letter is taken on record by marking as Exhibit ‘X’.
                                 -2-
                                                           wp90.26.odt

3.    It is further say of the Petitioner that if the borrower fails to

deposit the rest of the amount, then the bank would like to proceed

to take possession of the secured asset.



4.    Here, the Petitioner has prayed that the Respondent/Tahsildar

be directed to execute the order dated 02.11.2019 passed in

Application No. 07/2019 under Section 14 of the Securitization and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002 and to deliver physical possession of the secured

asset to the authorised officer of the Petitioner. Learned AGP informs

that the Tahsildar had gone to the spot on 10.02.2026 at 2.00 pm for

handing over possession of the secured asset to the Petitioner.

However, the authorised officer of the Petitioner was absent. Here, if

after the petition was filed, there are talks regarding compromise,

then the Petitioner should make up a mind as to whether to go with

the compromise or with the petition.       We do not want to keep the

petition pending.    Let there be a decision by the appropriate

authority of the Petitioner on the proposal of compromise and in the

event of the terms of compromise if any right arises for the Petitioner,

then the Petitioner may go before the Tahsildar once again.
                                 -3-
                                                          wp90.26.odt

5.    With these observations, we dispose of the writ petition.



( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR )                   ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI )
      JUDGE                                          JUDGE

dyb

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…