Bombay High Court
K D Textiles Thr Its Proprietor And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Government ... on 7 May, 2025
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
2025:BHC-AS:21232-DB
Digitally
signed by
SNEHA
SNEHA ABHAY
ABHAY DIXIT
DIXIT Date:
2025.05.08
21:17:52
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6078 OF 2025
1. K.D. Textiles, Bhiwandi, Thane ]
2. K.M. Textiles, Bhiwandi, Thane ]
3. R.G. Kondi, Bhiwandi, Thane ]
4. M.S. Textiles, Bhiwandi, Thane ] .. Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra ]
2. Abhyudaya Co-op. Bank Ltd. ]
3. Union of India, through Ministry of Finance ] .. Respondents
Mr. Mandar Soman with Mr. Sanjay Anabhawane, Advocates for the
Petitioners.
Mr. S.H. Kankal, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Madhur Rai with Mr. Durgesh Telang, Advocates, i/by PRS Legal, for
Respondent No.2.
Mr. Mohamedali M. Chunawala, i/by A.A. Ansari, Advocates for
Respondent No.3.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ
DATE : 7TH MAY 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT : { Per A.S. Chandurkar, J. }
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned counsel for
the parties.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 3 rd April 2025
passed by the learned I/c. Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-III by
which Interim Application No.1084 of 2025 came to be disposed of.
2-WP-6078-2025.doc
Dixit
3. At the outset, it may be stated that the learned counsel for the 2 nd
respondent raised an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition
on the ground that an alternate remedy of approaching the Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal was available for challenging the impugned
order.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners however submitted that as
the learned I/c. Presiding Officer has passed an unreasoned order,
especially in the backdrop of earlier orders passed in the same
proceedings, an exceptional case for interference has been made out.
5. In this backdrop we have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It is seen that in Securitisation Application No.291 of 2023 filed by the
petitioners, order dated 9th August 2023 was passed directing the
petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- within the time
stipulated. This amount has accordingly been deposited. Thereafter on
22nd November 2023, another order was passed requiring the 2nd
respondent to file its reply on merits to enable the arguments to be heard.
It was further directed that no coercive action be taken against the
petitioners. In the meanwhile on 21 st January 2025, another notice
proposing to take possession of the secured asset was issued by the 2 nd
respondent. This notice is stated to be served on the petitioners on 27 th
2-WP-6078-2025.doc
Dixit
March 2025. In this backdrop, the petitioners moved Interim Application
No.1084 of 2025 seeking interim relief. After hearing the parties, the
learned I/c. Presiding Officer passed the following order :-
"Heard both sides.
The possession intended today shall stand deferred on the
applicant depositing Rs.15 lakhs with the respondent-Bank
before 04:00 p.m. today, failing which the respondent-Bank
would be at liberty to take further steps as per SARFAESI
Act. I.A. No.1084 of 2025 stands disposed off.
List this matter on 30.06.2025 for filing reply to S.A."
6. From the aforesaid, it becomes clear that despite an earlier order of
interim protection, the request for grant of interim relief made by the
petitioners has been disposed of by passing an unreasoned order. Further,
the direction to deposit an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- before 4:00 p.m on
the date of the order itself is an impracticable direction for being complied
with, given the grievance usually made as regards the time for uploading
of the order and its immediate compliance. In these facts, we are of the
view that an exceptional case has been made out to exercise discretion.
7. On the short ground that the impugned order is unreasoned and
causes prejudice to the petitioners, we are inclined to set aside the same
and restore the Interim Application for its consideration by the Tribunal on
merits.
2-WP-6078-2025.doc
Dixit
8. It is informed that the next date of the proceedings before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal is 30th June 2025. The learned counsel for the 2 nd
respondent submits that affidavit-in-reply would be filed by 31 st May 2025.
The statement is accepted.
9. In view of the above, the following order is passed :-
(i) The order dated 3rd April 2025 passed by the learned
I/c. Presiding Officer in Interim Application No.1084
of 2025 in Securitisation Application No.291 of 2023
is set aside.
(ii) Interim Application No.1084 of 2025 is restored for
being heard and decided afresh on merits and in
accordance with law.
(iii) It is made clear that all contentions of the parties are
kept open for being raised before the Debts Recovery
Tribunal.
(iv) Affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the 2 nd respondent be
filed by 31st May 2025. Rejoinder, if any, be filed by
the petitioners by 16th June 2025. The Tribunal is
requested to decide the Interim Application
expeditiously and preferably on 30th June 2025.
2-WP-6078-2025.doc
Dixit
(iv) Till the Interim Application is decided, the notice
dated 21st January 2025 shall not be executed.
10. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.
[ DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
2-WP-6078-2025.doc
Dixit
