← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/4135/2026dismissed

Prabhakar Ratnakar Ghadigaonkar v. Bank Of Baroda Thr. Its Authorized Officer And ANR

2026-04-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'Ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat2 pages

8_WP4135_26.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4135 OF 2026 Prabhakar Ratnakar Ghadigaonkar ...

Petitioner Vs.

Bank of Baroda thr. its Authorized Officer and anr. ... Respondents None for Petitioner.

Ms. Purnima Pandit for Respondent No.1-Bank.

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

DATE : APRIL 22, 2026 P.C. :

.

In this petition, on 01.04.2026, after considering the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 bank, we thought it appropriate to permit the respondent No.1 bank to place an affidavit on record to give details of the events that occurred subsequent to passing of the impugned order. This was necessitated in the backdrop of the fact that the impugned order was passed as far back as on 18.01.2023 and the petitioner chose to challenge the same by way of this writ petition filed some time in March 2026.

2.

Today, there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner, while Ms. Pandit, learned counsel for respondent No.1 bank is present in Court and ready for arguments. Attention of this Court is invited to the affidavit in reply filed in pursuance of the permission granted by this Court by order dated 01.04.2026. A perusal of the contents of the MINAL SANDIP PARAB by MINAL SANDIP PARAB Date:

2026.04.23 13:04:34 +0530 affidavit shows that the public auction is already conducted and that, the successful bidder has deposited the entire amount and the sale was confirmed on 17.04.2026. It is also stated in the affidavit that the 1/2

8_WP4135_26.doc petitioner has already filed an appeal before the presiding officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal - III (DRT), Mumbai being aggrieved by the order of the recovery officer and that the said appeal is pending. 3.

In view of the said position on facts, we are not inclined to show any indulgence to the petitioner, who has chosen to file this writ petition after more than three years to challenge the impugned order dated 18.01.2023.

4.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Minal Parab 2/2