KUNAL JIWARAJKA AND ORS vs UNION BANK OF INDIA — WP/6881/2026
Case under Securitisation & Reconstruction of Finiancial Assets Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 12th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM010155642026
Filing Number
WP/9002/2026
Filing Date
27-03-2026
Registration No
WP/6881/2026
Registration Date
26-05-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHREERAM VINAYAK SHIRSAT
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHREERAM VINAYAK SHIRSAT
Bench Type
Division
Category
MERCANTILE LAWS COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS , BANKS ( 28 )
Sub-Category
MATTERS RELATING TO SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS ( 10 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
12th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KUNAL JIWARAJKA AND ORS
Adv. Link legal
LAXMIDEVI JIWARAJKA
SAKSHI JIWARAJKA
ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL AGENCIES
JSK POPMART LLP
Respondent(s)
UNION BANK OF INDIA
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHREERAM VINAYAK SHIRSAT
OBJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED
FRESH ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | OBJECTIONS TO BE REMOVED |
| 12-06-2026 | FRESH ADMISSION |
Orders
Summary of WP/6881/2026: The Bombay High Court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging a DRT order that rejected their interim application to restrain Union Bank from taking physical possession of mortgaged properties. The court held that the petitioners had an adequate statutory remedy—appeal to DRAT under Section 18 of the Securitisation Act—and found they were attempting to circumvent the mandatory pre-deposit requirement by approaching the writ court instead, despite a ten-month delay in filing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of WP/6881/2026: The Bombay High Court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging a DRT order that rejected their interim application to restrain Union Bank from taking physical possession of mortgaged properties. The court held that the petitioners had an adequate statutory remedy—appeal to DRAT under Section 18 of the Securitisation Act—and found they were attempting to circumvent the mandatory pre-deposit requirement by approaching the writ court instead, despite a ten-month delay in filing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts