Bombay High Court
SHAGUFTA TARIQUE KHANversusUNION BANK OF INDIA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner’s delay and conduct do not merit indulgence, and the notice is not per se arbitrary.
Summary
The petitioner, Shagufta Tarique Khan, sought relief from a notice dated 30 March 2026 issued by the Assistant Registrar of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) that prescribed a strict procedure for urgent matters, claiming it was arbitrary and left no scope for her to obtain an interim order before the bank could take physical possession of her property on 27 July 2026. The bank had obtained a recovery certificate under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, following a DRT order dated 6 March 2023, and the petitioner had previously resisted execution, alleging that the property had been gifted to her by her husband in 2022. The court observed that the petitioner’s own conduct—delaying the filing of a miscellaneous application until 21 July 2026 despite being aware of the earlier DRT orders—demonstrated a lack of bona‑fide urgency and an attempt to postpone the bank’s possession. Consequently, the court held that the procedural notice was not per se arbitrary and that the writ petition could not be entertained. The petition was dismissed, with the court indicating that the petitioner could still pursue her miscellaneous application before the DRT.
Issues considered
- The notice dated 30 March 2026 prescribing procedural requirements for urgent matters is arbitrary and violative of natural justice.
- Whether the writ petition seeking a stay of physical possession can be entertained given the petitioner’s delay and conduct.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Urgent relief
- Procedural notice
- Debt recovery
- Execution
- Physical possession
- Arbitrary notice
- Natural justice
Judgment
17_WP9516_26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9516 OF 2026
Shagufta Tarique Khan … Petitioner
Vs.
Union Bank of India and others … Respondents
Mr. Mandar Soman i/b. Mr. Vivek Vasant Phadke for Petitioner.
Mr. Anup Khaitan a/w. Mr. Harsh Gutka and Akshita Rathudi i/b. Anup Khaitan
& Co. for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : JULY 27, 2026
P.C. :
. Heard Mr. Soman, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This petition has been urgently circulated for today as the
respondent No.1 bank is to take physical possession of the subject
property today in terms of a notice dated 08.07.2026.
3. The petitioner has, inter alia, challenged Notice dated 30.03.2026
issued by the Assistant Registrar of Debts Recovery Tribunal - III,
Mumbai (DRT), which specifies a particular procedure for taking up all
urgent matters for consideration by the DRT. It is claimed that the said
Notice is arbitrary as it leaves no scope for a genuine case to be listed
before the DRT within the appropriate time period, as in this case.
4. It is brought to our notice that the petitioner was constrained to
file a miscellaneous application before the DRT, being aggrieved by the
aforesaid notice dated 08.07.2026 issued by the Advocate Court
Receiver, threatening to take physical possession of the subject property
today i.e. on 27.07.2026. It was submitted that the procedural rigmarole
MINAL Digitally signed by
MINAL SANDIP PARAB
SANDIP Date: 2026.07.27
PARAB 14:57:52 +0530
1/4
17_WP9516_26.doc
of getting the miscellaneous application registered and listed in terms of
the Notice dated 30.03.2026 virtually leaves no scope for consideration
of urgent interim order, and therefore, the Notice is arbitrary.
5. Respondent No.1 Bank is represented by counsel, who informs
this Court that the amount due in the present case, is about Rs.1.20
crores as on 15.04.2026.
6. At first blush, we were of the impression that since there is grave
urgency in the matter, the writ petition could perhaps be entertained.
But, a perusal of the admitted facts indicate otherwise. Original
Application No.252 of 2011 filed by the respondent No.1 bank, with
regard to credit facility advanced in the present case way back in the
year 2009, was allowed on 06.03.2023 and a recovery certificate was
directed to be issued as per the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and
Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
7. The petitioner is the wife of the proprietor of the original
borrower. It is an admitted position that she was resisting execution of
the said order of the DRT for the past about three years. On 24.10.2025,
the objection raised by the petitioner was rejected by taking note of the
fact that she was seeking to resist execution on the ground that the
subject property had been gifted to her by her husband by a registered
gift deed dated 24.11.2022. It was found that the mortgage by deposit of
title deed was created in favour of the respondent No.1 Bank as far back
as on 03.06.2009, and thereafter, the said gift deed dated 24.11.2022 was
executed. The recovery officer in the execution proceeding rendered a
finding that the aforesaid act of executing the gift deed was nothing but a
deliberate attempt to defeat and evade the recovery process. It is to be
noted that the said order was also passed as far back as on 24.10.2025.
Thereafter, one attempt of taking physical possession did not materialize
and the aforesaid notice dated 08.07.2026 for taking possession today
2/4
17_WP9516_26.doc
(27.07.2026) is the second attempt.
8. In this backdrop, as recently as on 21.07.2026, the petitioner
chose to file the miscellaneous application. We are of the opinion that
the grave urgency being projected on behalf of the petitioner is belied by
her own conduct of refusing to take any steps with regard to the original
order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the DRT and the aforesaid order dated
24.10.2025 passed on her application by the recovery officer in the
execution proceedings. Such a petitioner cannot be heard to say that the
procedural rigmarole contained in the Notice dated 30.03.2026 is
oppressive or arbitrary. A deliberate attempt appears to have been made
to delay the challenge as close as possible to the actual date of taking
physical possession, in order to knock the doors of the Writ Court to
gain sympathy in the matter. We are not at all impressed with the
contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. In any case, the aforesaid
Notice does indicate that in exceptional cases, the requirement of filing a
service affidavit at least 72 hours prior to the date of listing of the matter,
can be exempted.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner is at pains to point out that
although the Notice may indicate a different treatment for ‘exceptional
cases’, in practical terms, the litigants are facing serious inconvenience
due to the said Notice dated 30.03.2026.
10. We are of the opinion that a case has to be decided on its own
facts and the challenge to the Notice will have to be decided in a case
where the petitioner is able to demonstrate that despite bona fide efforts
being made, it is impossible to comply with the requirements of the said
Notice in an urgent matter.
11. We have already noticed the facts hereinabove, which do not
impress us with regard to the manner in which the miscellaneous
3/4
17_WP9516_26.doc
application is filed as recently as on 21.07.2026, despite the
aforementioned order dated 06.03.2023 of the DRT, of which the
petitioner was aware and the order dated 24.10.2025 on her own
application being rejected by the recovery officer in execution
proceedings.
12. We see no reason to show indulgence to such a petitioner, while
exercising writ jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
13. Nonetheless, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits and the contentions sought to be raised by the
petitioner in the miscellaneous application. The petitioner is at liberty to
pursue the same before the Presiding Officer of the DRT.
14. The DRT would take into consideration the miscellaneous
application on its own merits, without being influenced by the order
passed today in this writ petition.
15. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Minal Parab
4/4
Checking your session…