Sau. Megha W/O Pravin Tayade vs Chief Manager And Auth. Officer, Bank Of ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 220 Bom

Bombay High Court

Sau. Megha W/O Pravin Tayade vs Chief Manager And Auth. Officer, Bank Of ... on 9 January, 2026

                                                 1                                           41-WP-201-2026.odt




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                              WRIT PETITION NO.201 OF 2026
     Sau. Megha W/o. Pravin Tayade Vs. Chief Manager and AO, BOM

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                       Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders


                            Mr. Yash Venkatraman, Advocate for the Petitioner.

                                          CORAM: PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

DATED : 09th JANUARY, 2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Petitioner's challenge is to the orders dated 03.12.2025 and 15.10.2025 passed by the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court thereby, rejecting the application for temporary injunction in the suit filed by the petitioner seeking declaration and injunction with respect to the mortgage deed of the property in which the petitioner/original plaintiff had a share.

3. By relying upon the judgment in the matter of Bank of Baroda, through its Authorized Officer Vs. Pravin Gunvantrao Zoting and Others in Civil Revision Application No.134 of 2022 decided on 08.05.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inference drawn by the Courts' below about the entitlement of the plaintiff to claim injunction in the light of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, are not sustainable in law.

4. It is pointed out that the Appellate Court has categorically observed that the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is maintainable. Pertinently, the 2 41-WP-201-2026.odt

application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(b) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the respondent-Bank is rejected and the plaintiff's suit is held to be maintainable. He submits that steps are being taken to attach the property in which the petitioner has share and therefore, prays for interim relief.

5. In view of above, issue notice to the respondent, returnable after four weeks.

6. Petitioner is permitted to serve the respondent by private mode, in addition to regular mode of service and file affidavit of service in that regard by next date.

7. In view of the prima-facie case made out, in the meantime, no coercive action be taken with respect to the suit property.

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) 𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁