Pooja Raju Sharma And ANR v. Icici Bank Ltd

902-WP-2140-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2140 OF 2026 Pooja Raju Sharma and Anr ..

Petitioners V/s.

ICICI Bank Ltd ..

Respondent ------------------- Mr. Veer Kankaria, for the Petitioner.

Mr. R. L. Motwani, for the Respondent- ICICI Bank Ltd. Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:

2026.02.16 11:01:12 +0530 Mr. Nishant Trivedi, Officer of ICICI Bank was present. VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD --------------------

CORAM

:

MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

DATE :

13TH FEBRUARY 2026.

PC:

1.

This petition was urgently circulated on behalf of the petitioner on the ground of urgency.

2.

The urgency was projected on the basis of the directions issued in the impugned order dated 5th February 2026 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal -3, Mumbai (DRT).

3.

We find that a statutory remedy is available to the petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. There is no ground made out by the petitioners for entertaining the present writ petition despite availability of the said statutory remedy. None of the contingencies recognised in law for entertaining a writ petition despite availability of Sweety

902-WP-2140-2026.doc an alternative efficacious remedy, have been pointed out on behalf of the petitioners. Hence, we decline to entertain this petition. On this short ground, the writ petition is dismissed. 4.

Needless to say, the dismissal of this petition will not come in the way of the petitioners taking recourse to the statutory remedy available to the petitioners to approach the DRAT in accordance with law.

4.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Sweety