Bombay High Court
Vishwas Uttam Jamdhade vs The Chikhali Urban Co Operative Bank ... on 25 September, 2025
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
2025:BHC-NAG:9769-DB
1 935-cr.wp 1039.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1039 OF 2024
( Shri Vishwas Uttam Jamdhade vs. The Chikhali Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. )
Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders or the directions, Court's or Judge's order
and Registrar's orders.
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, JJ.
SEPTEMBER 25, 2025
1) On 27/12/2024 following order was passed :-
Heard.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash and set
aside the order dated 05/10/2024 passed by learned CJM,
Washim, in Criminal M.A. No. 199/2024 and the issuance
of communication/ notice dated 05.12.2024 pursuant to
the said order by the Court Commissioner regarding the
attachment of the petitioner's house property for
nonpayment of the loan dues.
2. Mr. Kadu, the learned Counsel for the petitioner,
contended that the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.
16,00,000/--against the loan amount of Rs. 9,00,000/--to
the respondent Bank till this date. Despite this, the Bank
has issued the impugned communication to attach the
mortgaged property towards the recovery of dues of Rs.
9,62,367/-.
3. Perusal of the record, prima facie, it appears that the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Washim, has passed an
order thereby appointing advocate Mr. Gite as a Court
Commissioner to take possession of the secured assets as
described in paragraph No. 1 of the said order. Pursuant to
the said order, the Court Commissioner, Mr. Gite, on
05.12.2024, issued notice/communication to the petitioner
and three others informing them that on 27.12.2024, he
would take possession of the mortgaged property. The
petitioner has not stated when the notice was served on
him. The averments about the same are vague.
KOLHE
2 935-cr.wp 1039.2024.odt
4. Moreover, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CELIR
LLP Vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and Others
(2024)2 SCC 1) has held that "the High Court should not
entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if
an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person
under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act." Despite the
mandate, the petitioner moved this petition, contending
that he was not aware of the passing of the order dated
05.10.2024 and that no notice was served on him till
26.12.2027 itself. Therefore, he has prayed for a grant of
stay to the communication dated 05.12.2024.
5. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the
order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 433/2024
dated 20.06.2024 and submitted that in view of the
observations made in the said order, the petitioner is ready
to deposit 50% of the loan dues as shown in the notice in
the Court by 31.12.2024. He further canvassed that if the
Commissioner has executed the notice, then the petitioner
would suffer irreparable loss, so it is submitted that without
giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order
is passed and thereby violates the fundamental rights of the
petitioner. Hence, he urged for granting an ad-interim stay.
6. Having considered the facts of the case and the
submissions, in my opinion, although an alternate remedy
is available to the petitioner to challenge the said order as
well as communication dated 05.12.2024, however, in the
interest of justice, it would be proper to give one more
opportunity to the petitioner, subject to he is depositing
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in the Court by 31.12.2024, which
would not cause prejudice to the other side. In the interest
of justice, I proceed to pass the following order.
i) The impugned order dated 05.10.2024,
passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Washim, in Criminal M.A. No. 199/2024 and
issuance of the communication dated 05.12.2024
pursuant to the said order is hereby stayed subject
to petitioners depositing Rs. 5,00,000/- in the Court
by 31.12.2024 if possession has not been taken till
2.50 p.m. today, on failure of this, the order shall
stand vacated without reference to the Court.
ii) Issue notice to the respondents, returnable
on 31.12.2024.
iii) Prayer for issuance of Steno copy is granted.
KOLHE
3 935-cr.wp 1039.2024.odt
2) Thus, this Court noted that the petitioner has
efficacious remedy under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, however,
since the petitioner has also challenged the communication dated
05/12/2024, which is in fact a consequence of the order dated
05/08/2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Washim
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. In view thereof and the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CELIR LLP Vs.
Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and Others (2024)2 SCC
1, we permit the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy within a
period of two weeks from today.
3) With the aforesaid liberty, the petition stands disposed
of.
4) The amount deposited by the petitioner before the
Court shall be remitted to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur.
Interim orders shall continue to operate for a period of two weeks
from today and shall stand discontinued on completion of two
weeks.
( JUDGE ) ( JUDGE )
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/09/2025 18:54:50
