SHRINIWAS RAMAS DUBAS AND ANRversusBANK OF MAHARASHTRA THR AND ANR

                                                        21-WP-160-2026.doc


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

                    WRIT PETITION NO. 9016 OF 2025

Shriniwas Ramdas Dubas Prop. Of
M/s. Shriniwas Ramdas Dubas And Another         ...Petitioners.
        Versus
Bank Of Maharashtra Thr And Another             ...Respondents.
                                ….
                  WRIT PETITION NO. 160 OF 2026

Shriniwas Ramdas Dubas Prop. Of
M/s. Shriniwas Ramdas Dubas And Another                ...Petitioners.
        Versus
Bank Of Maharashtra And Another                        ...Respondents.

                             ——————
Mr. Mandar Soman (Through V. C.) a/w Mr. Amol S. Deshinge i/b
Mr. Amarnath Boddul, Advocates for the Petitioners in Writ Petition
Nos.9016/2025 and 160/2026
Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate for the Respondent – Bank in Writ Petition
Nos.9016/2025 and 160/2026
                             ——————

                                Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                            Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                Date      : August 28, 2026.


P. C. :

1.        The captioned Writ Petition No.160/2026 has been preferred

challenging the order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery

Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRAT’) in

I. A. No.378/2025 in Misc. Appeal No.88/2025.




Sameer                           1 of 6
                                                                   21-WP-160-2026.doc


2.       Misc. Appeal No.88/2025 was iled by the Respondent Bank

before the DRAT being aggrieved by the order dated 17.06.2025 passed

by the Presiding Oicer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the DRT’), in Securitisation Application No.388/2025. The

DRT, by the said order, held in Paragraph Nos.7 and 8 as under :

         “7. In my judgment when matter is, particularly, Stay Application
         challenging possession process of mortgaged property initiated by
         bank or inancial institution is pending for hearing before the Court,
         process of taking possession should be slow. In the present case, it
         appears that defendant bank has hastily taken possession of the
         suit factory described in Schedule-I without waiting for order of the
         Court on said application iled by the applicants. So also, the
         defendant    bank   took    possession   of   remaining    two    suit
         properties_described in Schedule-II & III after Court disposed of the
         present application holding that it has become infructuous. The
         Court Commissioner has given reply to Notice issued by this DRT
         along with Pursis (Exhibit-9) produced by the applicant which is
         silent about timing of taking possession of the suit properties and
         therefore, explanation is devoid of consideration.

         8. In view of these observations, I am of opinion that applicants are
         entitled for relief of restoration of possession of suit factory
         described in Schedule-I of the Securitisation Application as its
         possession was taken at the time of hearing of this application
         before Presiding Oicer, DRT Nagpur, In-charge DRT, Pune. At the
         same time I hold that the applicants are not entitled for relief of
         restoration of other two properties described in Schedule-II & III of
         the Securitisation Application as possession of the same was taken
         after disposal of this application by Presiding Oicer, DRT Nagpur,
         In-charge DRT, Pune.”


Sameer                                 2 of 6
                                                          21-WP-160-2026.doc



3.       By the impugned order, DRAT opined that mere pendency of a

stay application is not a ground for the Bank to defer taking possession

unless stay is granted. As DRT had directed restoration of possession

only on the ground that possession was taken during the pendency of

the stay application before the DRT, the order was held to be not in

accordance with law and liable to be set aside.


4.       Mr. Soman, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, points

out that in the earlier round of litigation, all the prayers in the interim

applications of the Petitioners were not considered. He points out that

this Court, by order dated 11.03.2025, had prima facia observed that a

grievance was also raised with regard to the illegal manner in which

possession was taken, noting that the Presiding Oicer of the DRT had

called for an explanation from the concerned Court Commissioner as to

why possession was taken when the matter was sub judiced before the

Tribunal. He further submits that the DRT, in view of the fact that

possession was taken during the pendency of the proceedings before

the DRT and when the inal arguments were ongoing, has rightly

restored possession of the suit property described in Schedule-I.

However, so far as the properties described in Schedule – II and III, of

which possession was also taken by the Bank, the DRT has not directed

the relief of restoration of those two properties. He submits that the



Sameer                            3 of 6
                                                        21-WP-160-2026.doc


connected Writ Petition challenges that part of the order of the DRT,

which declines the relief of restoration of possession of the suit

properties described in Schedule – II and III of the Securitisation

Application.


5.       We have considered the submissions and perused the record.


6.       In so far as the connected Writ Petition No 9016 of 2025 is

concerned, against the order of the DRT dated 17.06.2025 declining

restoration of possession of Schedule II and III properties, the

Petitioners did not prefer any appeal before the DRAT and have directly

approached this Court. The Respondent Bank being aggrieved by part of

the order dated 17.06.2025 immediately approached the DRAT, which

passed the order dated 12.11.2025. The Petitioners had participated in

the hearing of the Respondent Bank’s appeal challenging the very same

order to the extent that it directs possession to be handed over to the

Petitioners of Schedule I property. Having failed to appeal against the

order of 17.06.2025 to the extent of declining restoration of possession

of Schedule II and III properties, we are not inclined to entertain the

challenge by the Petitioners directly in this Court.    Considering the

alternate remedy, which was available to the Petitioners before the

DRAT, and which has not been availed, we are not inclined to entertain

Writ Petition No.9016/2025 and the same stands dismissed.


Sameer                            4 of 6
                                                         21-WP-160-2026.doc


7.       Coming to the Writ Petition No 160/2026, the only reason

assigned by the DRT in the order of 17.06.2025 for restoration of

possession of the suit factory described in Schedule – I of the

Securitisation Application to the Petitioners is that the stay application

was pending adjudication before the DRT and in such circumstances, the

process of taking possession should be slow. There is no inding of

illegality in taking over the possession by the Respondent Bank. By the

impugned order, the DRAT opined that mere pendency of a stay

application is not a ground for the Bank to defer taking possession

unless the stay is granted. There is no statutory provision which

provides that the pendency of an application before the DRT, without

any stay having been granted by the order of the DRT, would operate as

stay against the Bank from taking action under the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest

Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’).


8.       The argument of Mr. Soman rests on the ground of propriety, as

the inal arguments were being heard. In the absence of any restraint

order against the Bank, it was within its rights to exercise powers under

the SARFAESI Act and take possession. There is no other reason apart

from the pendency of the proceedings before the DRT which resulted in

the grant of relief of restoration of possession of the suit factory



Sameer                           5 of 6
                                                            21-WP-160-2026.doc


described in Schedule – I. The submissions canvassed by Mr. Soman

borders on terming the mere iling of application as statutory stay to

further action by the Bank. We are of the opinion that if the contention

of Mr. Soman is accepted, the parties would delay the hearing of the

proceedings, which would indirectly operate as restraint order against

the Bank.


9.       In light of the above discussion, there is no perversity in the order

passed by the DRAT. Resultantly, Writ Petition No.160/2026 and Writ

Petition No. 9016/2025 stand dismissed.




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




Sameer                              6 of 6