[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
M/S. Viorica Hotels Pvt. Ltd. And Ors vs The Authorized Officer Union Bank Of ... on 30 January, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2026:BHC-AS:4783-DB
501-wp-1462-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1462 OF 2026
M/s. Viorica Hotels Pvt. Ltd and Ors. .. Petitioners
V/s.
The Authorised Officer Union Bank of .. Respondents
India and Ors
-------------------
Mr. Ismail Nasikwala, for the Petitioners,
Ms. Vaishali Bhilare with Somesh Talla, for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Ms. Krushi N. Barfiwala with Divyanshu Gupta and Alisha Mohite i/by
Parinam Law Associates, for Respondent Nos. 10.
--------------------
Digitally
signed by
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
VARSHA
VARSHA DEEPAK
DEEPAK GAIKWAD
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.01.30
17:58:18
+0530 DATE : 30TH JANUARY 2026.
PC:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned
counsel for the Respondents at some length.
2. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioners have challenged the order
dated 12th January 2026 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal (DRAT) in an interim application for waiver of statutory
deposit under Section 18 of the Securitisation And Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002.
3. During the course of the arguments, it came to light that in terms
of the impugned order, the Petitioners have still not deposited the first
installment of the pre-deposit amount determined by the DRAT in the
varsha 1 of 4
501-wp-1462-2026.doc
impugned order. The Petitioners have also not taken any steps in
respect of deposit of the amount of Rs. 57,16,50,076/- with the
admissible rate of interest applicable to the fixed deposit to the
Respondent-Bank within the period of ten days stipulated in the
impugned order.
4. It is brought to our notice that since the Petitioners failed to
abide by the directions given by the DRAT in the impugned order,
subsequently, on 22nd January 2026 the DRAT passed a specific order
recording that the interim order is already vacated.
5. This interim order, inter alia, concerns demolition of a Hotel
building on the subject property which the Respondent - Auction
purchaser has already taken in proceedings as per the Securitisation
Act.
6. After making submissions on behalf of the Petitioners,when this
Court was not in favour of the Petitioners, the learned counsel for the
Petitioners, on instructions, submitted that this Court may permit the
Petitioners to withdraw the Writ Petition in order to file a fresh
application before the DRAT for modification of the order dated 12 th
January 2026, in the light of specific grounds raised in the present Writ
Petition.
7. We are of the opinion that there cannot be an embargo on a
party to move an application for modification of order before the
DRAT, but considering the chequered history of the proceedings and
the conduct of the Petitioners, we find that appropriate directions need
to be issued before the liberty claimed by the Petitioners is granted.
varsha 2 of 4
501-wp-1462-2026.doc
8. In the facts and circumstances brought to the notice of this Court
where we find that the Petitioners have been making representations
before the DRAT about their preparedness to deposit the amount of
Rs.57,16,50,076/-, and failing to abide by such representations and
impressions given to the DRAT, it would be appropriate to impose
certain conditions for permitting liberty to the Petitioners to approach
the DRAT for modification of the order dated 12 th January 2026. It is
undisputed that this is the excess amount realised from auction sale,
which was disbursed to the Petitioners and which is required to be
redeposited as per law, when the Petitioners are challenging the
auction sale.
9. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of as
withdrawn with liberty to the Petitioners to file a fresh application
before the DRAT for modification of the order dated 12th January 2026.
10. It is made clear that the DRAT shall entertain such an
application, only upon the Petitioners showing proof of having
deposited the first installment of the pre-deposit stipulated in the order
dated 12th January 2026, as per the timeline indicated therein i.e. by
02/02/2026 and further depositing the amount of Rs. 57,16,50,076/-
with the Respondent - Bank. This is particularly in the backdrop that
the Petitioners all along showed willingness to deposit the said
amount, mainly disputing liability to pay interest thereon, on certain
grounds that they intend to raise in the proposed application. It is only
if these conditions are satisfied that the DRAT will consider the
proposed application to be filed by the Petitioners. It is clarified that in
terms of the subsequent order dated 22 nd January 2026, the interim
varsha 3 of 4
501-wp-1462-2026.doc
order is already vacated and that continues to be the position.
11. It is made clear that the rights and contentions of the parties are
kept open, meaning thereby that the Respondents will be entitled to
oppose the contentions and the prayers that would be made in the
proposed application to be filed on behalf of the Petitioners.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
varsha 4 of 4
