Rajesh Shankar Rajiwade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 March, 2026

Author: Manish Pitale

Bench: Manish Pitale

                                                                   501_WPL9722_26.doc



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                    WRIT PETITION (L) NO.9722 OF 2026

Cineline Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.                             ...     Petitioner
Vs.
Punjab National Bank and another                             ...     Respondents

Mr. Abhishek Kothari i/b. Mr. Aayush Kedia for Petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Abhishek P. Rajput for Respondent
No.2.

                                    CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
                                            SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

DATE : MARCH 17, 2026

P.C. :

. Heard Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Respondent No.2 is also represented by counsel, who is supporting the urgent interim prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

3. This petition was mentioned in the morning for urgent listing. Considering the urgency in the matter, we directed the petition to be taken up on production board at 3:00 p.m. The urgency in the matter is an auction being conducted today by respondent No.1 - Punjab National Bank in respect of the property, which is the subject matter of this petition. It is claimed to be the secured asset of the respondent No.1 Bank as the secured creditor.

4. This is the second occasion on which the petitioner has approached this Court. Writ Petition (L) No.2711 of 2026 was filed by this very petitioner, wherein the sequence of events was recorded in the order dated 28.01.2026 while disposing of the said petition. It would be advantageous to quote the said order so that the background in which the

501_WPL9722_26.doc

present writ petition is filed, becomes clear. The order dated 28.01.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (L) No.2711 of 2026 reads as follows:-

". This petition was mentioned yesterday for urgent listing. Considering the facts brought to the notice of this Court, the petition was directed to be listed for consideration today in the supplementary list.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is in a narrow compass. Securitisation Application bearing No.305 of 2023, filed by the petitioner is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (DRT). In the said application, the petitioner was granted interim relief by an order dated 02.08.2023, when the respondent No.1-bank was directed to put on hold an auction that was scheduled on the next date i.e. on 03.08.2023 and the aforesaid application was supposed to come up for hearing. But, it appears that it could not be taken up for effective hearing and the interim direction continued to operate against the respondent No.1-bank.

3. During pendency of the aforesaid application, the respondent No.1-bank issued a fresh auction notice, specifying the date of auction as 28.01.2026 i.e. today. In that light, the petitioner was constrained to move the DRT for amending the aforesaid application, to challenge the said fresh auction notice and in that context, Interim Application No.195 of 2026 was moved, for seeking stay of the fresh auction notice.

4. On 23.01.2026, the DRT allowed the amendment, keeping all issues and contentions open, while the aforesaid interim application, pertaining to prayer for stay, was adjourned to 30.01.2026. The respondent No.1-bank had made a request for filing reply to the said application.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the auction itself is to take place on 28.01.2026 i.e. today, adjourning hearing on the securitisation application and the interim application to 30.01.2026 has the effect of rejecting the prayer for stay, without granting any hearing by the DRT. Therefore, it is submitted that this petition can be disposed of by a limited direction of granting stay to the auction slated today, till the DRT takes up the aforesaid application for stay on 30.01.2026. It is submitted that this Court may consider granting stay, till the application is heard and decided by the DRT.

6. The aforesaid prayer is vehemently opposed by respondent No.1-bank. It is submitted that on 23.01.2026, when the proceedings were adjourned, the petitioner did not press for

501_WPL9722_26.doc

urgent stay and that the bank has been waiting for all these years to conduct the auction. It was submitted that the DRT-II is very much available and therefore, the petitioner ought not to have rushed to this Court.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties, we find that when the DRT was aware about the fact that the auction was fixed for today i.e. 28.01.2026, the application for stay moved on behalf of the petitioner, ought to have been taken up for consideration and disposal or at least for considering the prayer for ad-interim relief, prior to 28.01.2026. By adjourning the proceeding to 30.01.2026 on the request made by respondent No.1-bank to file reply to the interim application, in effect the DRT rejected the prayer for interim relief/ad-interim relief without affording any hearing to the petitioner.

8. While we understand that the DRT is under work pressure, due to which the applications may be partly heard and adjourned, but the DRT ought to have at least considered the prayer for ad-interim stay of the auction proceeding, prior to 28.01.2026. Hence, we are of the opinion that this petition can be disposed of by issuing limited direction.

9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of by directing that the auction proposed for today by respondent No.1-bank, shall stand deferred for a period of one week from today. The DRT-II is directed to take up Interim Application No.195 of 2026 in Securitisation Application No.305 of 2023 filed by the petitioner, for consideration, hearing and orders on 30.01.2026, which is the date already allotted to the said application.

10. It is made clear that if, for some reason, the DRT-II is unable to hear and dispose of the said application on the said date, the prayer for ad-interim relief made on behalf of the petitioner, shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed.

11. Writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. Interim applications, if any, also stand disposed of."

5. We are informed that in the light of the direction issued by this Court in the above-quoted order, the auction, that was slated for 28.01.2026, was deferred. Thereafter, a fresh notice was issued by the respondent No.1 Bank fixing date of auction as 17.03.2026 i.e. today. In that context, the petitioner was again constrained to approach the DRT-

501_WPL9722_26.doc

II, Mumbai (DRT) by filing Interim Application No.580 of 2026 seeking stay of the auction. On 11.03.2026, the DRT passed the following order in the said application, which was filed in pending Securitisation Application No.305 of 2023:-

" Both sides represented.

It is seen that the Respondent Bank had not filed a reply to I.A.No.580 of 2026 filed by applicant for stay of the auction. The Respondent / bank requests for time for filing a reply. The matter could have been disposed off earlier if only the respondent / bank had filed a reply earlier. So the respondent / bank is given time to file a reply on 16.03.2026. Further action by the respondent / bank shall not be effected till filing of reply by respondent /bank and disposed off the I.A.No.580 of 2026. It is open to any side to urge for early hearing at any point of time after 16.03.2026.

List this matter on 16.03.2026 for reply to I.A.No.580 of 2026.

Sd/-

                                                         I/c P.O.
                                                         DRT-II           "

6. In the writ petition, the petitioner has made the following statements:-

"11. It is submitted that in SA filed by the Respondent No.2 i.e. SA No.293 of 2023, the Counsel for the Respondent No.2 sought time to go through the reply filed by the Bank in IA No.577 of 2026 and also file Rejoinder if any as the reply was only served in the late evening of Saturday. However, the Ld. DRT proceeded to adjourn the matter to 18.03.2026, which is beyond the date of the Auction and vacated the stay and permitted Respondent No.1 Bank to proceed with the further steps in the auction process.

12. Pertinently, even though no specific similar request was made by the Petitioner in SA filed by the Petitioner, the DRT has passed a similar order in the SA filed by the Petitioner and vacated the interim protection granted vide order dated 11.03.2026. Pertinently the order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the Ld. DRT is not available as at the time of the filing of the Writ Petition, however the same was dictated in the presence of the counsels of the parties. The Petitioner undertakes to place the same on record as and when the same is made available."

501_WPL9722_26.doc

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though this petition is taken up for consideration, till this time the order purportedly passed yesterday i.e. 16.03.2026 is not made available by the DRT. Yet, the respondent No.1 Bank has proceeded to conduct the auction today and it is under process.

8. Considering the above-mentioned statements made in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the writ petition on affidavit, we are inclined to entertain this writ petition and grant ad-interim order.

9. We find it surprising that the Presiding Officer of DRT has allegedly dictated the order in the presence of the counsel yesterday and yet, the order is not made available. Respondent No.1 Bank appears to be proceeding on the basis of what transpired yesterday before the DRT.

10. As we find from the record, the last order of the DRT is dated 11.03.2026 at exhibit-B, which is quoted hereinabove, and the said order appears to be operating. It specifically records that further action by the respondent No.1 Bank shall not be effected till pending Interim Application No.580 of 2026 filed by the petitioner is disposed of. The said application is still pending and it is directed to be listed tomorrow i.e. 18.03.2026 for further consideration. The purported order on the basis of which the respondent No.1 Bank is said to be proceeding to conduct auction today is not available and in these circumstances, urgent ad-interim reliefs are warranted.

11. In view of the above, issue notice for final disposal, returnable on 30.03.2026, High on Board.

12. Mr. Rajput waives notice on behalf of respondent No.2.

13. Humdast granted for respondent No.1. Additionally, the petitioner shall serve the respondent No.1 Bank by way of private service and file

501_WPL9722_26.doc

an affidavit of service before the next date of listing.

14. In the meanwhile, by way of an ad-interim order it is directed that the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the DRT shall continue to operate, notwithstanding the purported order passed by the DRT yesterday i.e. 16.03.2026. By way of further ad-interim order, the respondent No.1 Bank is directed to forthwith halt the process of auction, which we are informed is still under process.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

Minal Parab