[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Santosh Bhausaheb Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra Throu. Sunil ... on 6 April, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
13-WP-4258-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4258 OF 2026
Santosh Bhausaheb Patil .. Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra Throu. Sunil .. Respondents
Narayandas Sahu and Ors
-------------------
Mr. Amit Sale, a/w Mr. Tukaram Shendge, for the Petitioner.
--------------------
Digitally
signed by
VARSHA
VARSHA DEEPAK
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
DEEPAK GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.04.06
16:08:10
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
+0530
DATE : 6TH APRIL 2026.
PC:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The present writ petition is
filed and circulated for urgent ad-interim relief in the light of physical
possession of a secured asset sought to be taken tomorrow, i.e. on
07/04/2026 at 11 am by the Respondent No. 1 Bank (secured creditor).
2. The petitioner is the mortgagor of the subject property (secured asset)
for a loan facility availed by Respondent No. 2 (borrower). The Respondent
No. 3, who is the wife of the petitioner, is the proprietor of the Respondent
No. 2 (borrower).
3. The petitioner claims that despite being the mortgagor of the subject
property and the husband of the proprietor of the Respondent No. 2
(borrower), he was completely unaware of proceedings undertaken by the
Sweety 1 of 4
13-WP-4258-2026.doc
Respondent No. 1 Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest
Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). It is claimed that when notice of taking physical
possession was received, the petitioner was constrained to obtain certified
copies and he is before this Court seeking urgent ad-interim relief.
4. The Respondent No. 1 Bank has not been served in advance. As a
consequence, there is no representation on behalf of the said respondent. On
the face of it, we find this to be another case of the mortgagor being a fence
sitter throughout the lawful proceedings undertaken by the Respondent No.
1 Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Prima facie, the petitioner
is feigning ignorance of the steps taken by the Respondent No. 1 Bank
despite the fact that he is the mortgagor of the subject property and also the
husband of the proprietor of Respondent No. 2, i.e. the original borrower.
The filing of the writ petition and having it circulated, one day prior to
physical possession of the secured asset being taken is another example of
creating a situation of urgency before the Writ Court to somehow obtain an
ad-interim order and to enjoy the same to the detriment of the Respondent
No. 1 (secured creditor).
5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has recourse to an
alternative efficacious remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal
(DRT) under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The Supreme Court in a
Sweety 2 of 4
13-WP-4258-2026.doc
series of judgments including in the case of Bank of India v/s Satyavati
Tandon [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and a recent judgment in the case of Celir LLP
v/s Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. And Ors [(2024) 2 SCC 1] has
repeatedly held that the High Court in writ jurisdiction ought not to
entertain writ petitions when such statutory alternative efficacious remedy
of approaching the DRT is available to the aggrieved person. In the present
case, the usual ground of violation of principles of natural justice is taken
only with the view to maintain the present writ petition. In such a situation,
we were inclined to dismiss the writ petition today itself. But, the learned
counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to a ground taken in
the writ petition stating that the daughter of the petitioner has appeared for
the 12th Board Examination from Science stream and that she is in the
process of appearing for entrance examinations for admission to professional
courses. It is indicated that the Entrance Examinations would continue till
May 2026. On this basis, it is submitted that if physical possession of the
subject property is taken, it may disturb the studies of the daughter of the
petitioner.
6. Despite the aforesaid specific grounds taken in the writ petition, we
are of the opinion that even if limited ad-interim direction is to be issued till
the next date, the petitioner must be put to appropriate terms in the light of
the observations made hereinabove.
Sweety 3 of 4
13-WP-4258-2026.doc
7. In view of the above, issue notice returnable on 21 st April 2026, list in
supplementary list. Humdast granted in addition.
8. We find that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are proforma respondents, yet
the petitioner shall ensure service upon the said respondents. As regards,
Respondent No. 1 Bank (secured creditor), additionally the petitioner shall
serve the said respondent by way of private service and file an affidavit of
service on or before 18th April 2026.
9. Subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs. 25 lakh in this
Court on or before 18th April 2026, the taking over of physical possession of
the subject property shall be deferred till the returnable date, i.e.
21/04/2026. Consequently, the Respondent No. 1 Bank shall not act upon
the notice issued for taking physical possession of the subject property
tomorrow i.e. 07/04/2026 at 11 am, till the next date.
10. We are making clear that the ad-interim order shall operate only till
the next date of listing and it has been granted without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the parties.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Sweety 4 of 4
