Pankaj R. Verma v. Icici Bank Through Authorised Officer And ANR

6_WP_1601_25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1601 OF 2025 Pankaj R. Verma ...

Petitioner vs.

ICICI Bank, Through authorised officer & anr. ...

Respondents Mr. Nikhil Singh for petitioner.

Ms. Shyamli Hajela, i/b. H and M Legal Associates for respondent No.1bank. Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for respondent No.2-State. CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ DATE :

28th JANUARY, 2026 P.C. :

.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

By this petition, the petitioner is seeking to challenge statutory notice dated 14.05.2024 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act). It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid notice and the consequent possession notice are all bad in law, as he has a very good case on merits.

3.

We find that such aggrieved persons, in this case the borrower himself, has sufficient remedy available under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act and thereafter, to approach the appellate tribunal under Section 18 thereof. In the face of such statutory remedies available to the petitioner, there is no specific ground made out for this Court to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

by PRIYA KAMBLI Date:

2026.01.29 10:48:13 +0530 PRIYA KAMBLI 1/2

6_WP_1601_25.doc 4.

In any case, the learned counsel for appearing for respondent No.1-bank informs this Court that pursuant to the impugned notice, further necessary steps under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act and thereafter, approaching the Magistrate under Section 14 thereof, were already undertaken. The possession was taken and the property was put to auction. The auction purchaser has already deposited the amount. The sale certificate is already issued and the auction purchaser is very much in possession of the property. 5.

In such a situation, there is no question of exercising writ jurisdiction in favour of such petitioner.

6.

The writ petition is dismissed.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Priya Kambli 2/2