← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1096/2026disposed off

Ramkrishna Vasudeorao Patil And Another v. Authorized Officer Icici Bank Ltd And Another

2026-01-29Hon'Ble Shri Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar2 pages

2026:BHC-AUG:5137 wp 1096.2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1096 OF 2026 Ramkrishna Vasudeorao Patil And Another

VERSUS

Authorized Officer Icici Bank Ltd And Another ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. K.B. Jadhav ...

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

Dated : January 29, 2026 PER COURT :- 1.

Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated 27.6.2025 passed in diary no.1497 of 2025 in SA Diary no.897 of 2025 by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad.

2.

Perusal of the impugned order shows that petitioners approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short DRT) by filing SA diary no.897 of 2025 and sought relief to restrain respondents/bank from taking possession of the suit property. The learned Presiding Officer of DRT, after considering assurance of petitioners that they are ready to deposit Rs.2.00 Lakh in loan account and dues of more than Rs.26 Lakhs, passed order directing Bank to defer from taking possession of secured asset on condition that petitioners deposits Rs.2.00

wp 1096.2026.odt Lakhs on the same day and regularize the account within one month and thereafter pay EMI Regularly.

3.

It appears that petitioners had availed benefit of the said order to certain extent. They made deposit of initial amount of Rs.2 Lakh, however, thereafter, defaulted to comply with preconditions for grant of relief in favour of petitioners. In light of aforesaid circumstances, present writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the DRT, Aurangabad. This Court finds no reason to entertain the writ petition, when petitioners have enjoyed benefit of the concession under impugned order and got deferred possession of secured asset on assurance of making regular deposit of EMIs. Apart from that, order passed by the DRT is appealable and petitioners had an alternate remedy.

4.

In that view of the matter, there is no reason to entertain the present writ petition. Writ Petition stands rejected. ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ) ...

AAA/-