Bombay High Court
Badar Singh S/O Shiv Singh vs Vijaya Mahendra Shinde And Ors on 24 April, 2025
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
2025:BHC-AS:18661-DB
RAMESHWAR
LAXMAN 15-WPST-11826-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
DILWALE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by RAMESHWAR
LAXMAN WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.11826 OF 2025
DILWALE
Date: 2025.04.25 Mr. Badar Singh, }
15:04:13 +0530 s/o Mr. Shiv Singh }
having address at A-404, Salasar Aangan, }
Near Hotel Ronak Fine Dine, }
Kankia Road, Mira Bhayander, }
Thane-401107. }
.. Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Mrs. Vijaya Mahendra Shinde }
(Borrower), }
Having address at Room No.2 Sarubai Smruti }
CHS Ltd, Near Hanuman Temple, Opp. S. N. }
College, Navghar goan, Navghar Road }
Bhayandar East, District Thane, }
Thane-401105. }
2. Mr. Mahendra Mulji Shinde }
(Co-Borrower) }
Room No.2 Sarubai Smruti CHS Ltd, }
Near Hanuman Temple, Opp.S. N. }
College, Navghar Goan, Navghar Road, }
Bhayandar East, District Thane, }
Thane-401105. }
3. Mr. Shubham Mahendra Shinde }
(Co-Borrower) }
Room No.2 Sarubai Smruti CHS Ltd. }
Near Hanuman Temple, Opp. S. N. }
College, Navghar Goan, Navghar Road, }
Bhayandar East, District-Thane, }
Thane-401105. }
4. Bank of Maharashtra }
A Body Corporate constituted under }
The Banking Companies (Acquisition and }
Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970) }
Having its Branch Address at Bhawani }
Shankar Road Branch BS Road Branch, }
Brahmanseva Mandal Building, Bhawani }
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2025 07:19:19 :::
15-WPST-11826-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
Shankar Road, dadar west, }
Mumbai-400028. }
E-mail:[email protected] }
Head Office: Lokmangal, 1501, Shivajinagar, }
Pune-5 }
5. Mr. Vinod Dnyanu Jagtap }
(Guarantor) }
A-103, Chandresh Shopping Arcade, }
Navghar Phatak Road, Opp. Shirdi Nagar, }
Bhayander East, Thane 401105. }
6. Union of India, }
Writ to be served upon the Government Pleader }
Mumbai. }
.. Respondents
...
Mr. Sanjay Anabhawane, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Aayush Kothari i/by Mr. Raj Dani, Mr. Dipesh Gupta,
Advocates for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
Ms. Hema Desai, Advocate for the respondent no.4-Bank.
...
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ
DATE : 24th APRIL 2025.
JUDGMENT:
(PER : A. S. CHANDURKAR, J)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned
counsel for the petitioner. The respective counsel waives service
for the respondents.
2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has raised a
challenge to the order dated 20/03/2025 passed by the Debts
Recovery Tribunal in Securitisation Application No.147 of 2025.
The petitioner, an auction purchaser has raised grounds (e) and (f)
15-WPST-11826-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
in the writ petition which read as under:-
(e) That, before passing of the Impugned Order dated
20.03.2025 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer of
Debt Recovery Tribunal No. II at Mumbai in I.A. No.652
of 2025 in S.A. No. 147 of 2025, the Learned Presiding
Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal No. II at Mumbai ought
to have grant the opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner
who is successful Auction Purchaser and has vested
right in the subject property.
(f) That, before passing of the Impugned Order dated
20.03.2025 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer of
Debt Recovery Tribunal No. II at Mumbai in I.A. No.652
of 2025 in S.A. No. 147 of 2025, the Learned Presiding
Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal No. II at Mumbai ought
to have considered the settled legal position of law that,
"Once, the sale is confirmed by that competent authority,
vested rights accrue in favour of the auction-purchaser,
and in view of this vested right, the Petitioner is required
to be heard before passing any order on settlement of
the loan account" and therefore, the Impugned Order
passed by the Learned Presiding Officer of the Debt
Recovery Tribunal No. II, Mumbai is total defiance of the
fundamental principles of judicial procedure and in total
violation of the principles of natural justice."
3. In our view, it would be necessary for the petitioner to first
approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal for seeking recall of the
order dated 20/03/2025 on the ground raised by him. For this
15-WPST-11826-25 JUDGMENT.doc Rameshwar Dilwale
reason, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Hence,
with aforesaid liberty and keeping all contentions of parties open
for being urged before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the writ
petition is disposed of.
[ M.M. SATHAYE, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
