Bombay High Court

GOVINDSINGH NANABHAU GIRASEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court disposed of the writ petitions, granting the petitioners liberty to approach the bank for settlement or to proceed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Summary

The petitioners, poor agriculturists, challenged a possession warrant dated 16‑07‑2026 issued by the Additional Tahsildar for execution of a bank’s order under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The bank argued that no possession was actually taken and that the petition was therefore infructuous, suggesting the petitioners seek relief before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The petitioners contended that they were unable to repay the loan due to COVID‑19 and adverse climatic conditions and were arranging a one‑time repayment. The Court noted the bank’s position and the availability of an alternative remedy, and disposed of the writ petitions by granting the petitioners liberty to approach the bank for settlement or to file an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. No substantive order interfering with the warrant was granted.

Issues considered

Whether the possession warrant issued under the Securitization Act can be challenged by a writ petition when no actual possession has been taken.
Whether the petitioners have a viable alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Whether Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, authorises the issuance of the warrant in the present facts.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

possession warrant
Section 14
Securitization Act
Debt Recovery Tribunal
agricultural loan
COVID‑19
writ petition
High Court of Bombay

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:35440-DB


                                                      *1*                            2


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  WRIT PETITION NO.9596 OF 2026

                                BHATESINGH CHANDRASINGH GIRASE
                                             VERSUS
                                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
                                               …
                                  WRIT PETITION NO.9597 OF 2026

                                 GOVINDSINGH NANABHAU GIRASE
                                             VERSUS
                                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
                                               …
                                  WRIT PETITION NO.9598 OF 2026

                              BHAGWANSINGH DADABHAI GIRASE
                                             VERSUS
                             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
                                                …
                Mr. Syd Azizoddin R. Advocate for the petitioner in all petitions.
                Mr. N. S. Tekale, Mr. S. R. Wakle and Mr. A. M. Phule, AGPs in
                respective petitions.
                                                ...

                                      CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI &
                                              ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                      DATE : 6th AUGUST 2026

                P. C. :-

                1.         By these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the

                possession       warrant/notice   dated     16.07.2026   issued   by

                Respondent No.4, the Additional Tahsildar, Dondaicha.

                2.         Respondent No.5-Bank has obtained an order under

                Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial

                Narwade
                                     *2*                           2


Assets and Enforcement of the Security Interest Act, 2002,

against the petitioners. For execution of the said order, the

impugned notices are issued by Respondent No.4-Additional

Tahsildar.

3.        Respondent No.5-Bank, in whose favour the said order is

issued is served privately. Learned Advocate Mr. Munde appears

for Respondent No.5-Bank. On instructions from the Bank, he

makes a statement that the possession is not taken today as no

responsible officer from the Office of Respondent No.4,

Additional Tahsildar remained present for execution of the said

order. He, therefore, submits that the petition is rendered

infructuous since no possession is taken. He further submits that

the petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy of

approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

4.        Communication addressed to Respondent No.4, the

Additional      Tahsildar   by   Respondent   No.5-Bank     dated

06.08.2026 is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification.

5.        Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the

Petitioners are poor agriculturists. They could not repay the loan

due to the Covid-19 situation and thereafter adverse climatic

situation. He further submits that they are in the process of

Narwade
                                        *3*                          2


arranging one time repayment of the loan.

6.        In the light of the above, Writ Petitions are disposed of by

granting liberty to the petitioners to approach Respondent No.5-

Bank with a request for settlement or            the Debt Recovery

Tribunal.




(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)              (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)




Narwade

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…