Ashok Shripat Bharati v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Revenue And Forest Department And ORS

bipin prithiani 3-wp-6689.26.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6689 OF 2026 Ashok Shripat Bharati ...

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...

Respondents ****** Ms. Poonam Pal i/by Mr. Sachin Hande for the Petitioner. Mrs. Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP for Respondent-State. ****** CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

DATE : 12th JUNE 2026 P.C. :

.

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Competent Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act). 2.

A statutory remedy is available to the petitioner for approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Union Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 110, has categorically laid down that the writ Court ought not to entertain petitions where such statutory, alternative, efficacious remedy is available to the aggrieved persons. 3.

The said position of law has been reiterated in a number of by BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date:

2026.06.12 18:49:56 +0530 BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI

bipin prithiani 3-wp-6689.26.doc judgments, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Celir LLP vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited & Ors., (2024) 2 SCC 1. As a matter of fact, in the said judgment, the Supreme Court observed that despite the position of law being reiterated, High Courts have continued to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ignoring statutory remedies under the Securitisation Act, which cannot be countenanced.

4.

In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, the writ petition is dismissed.

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