M/S. PRISHIJA ENERGY PRIVATE LTD. vs SARASWAT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. Advocate - V DESHPANDE AND COMPANY — WP/6095/2026

Case under Securitisation & Reconstruction of Finiancial Assets Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010204852026

Filing Number

WP/11933/2026

Filing Date

22-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/6095/2026

Registration Date

30-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez Dubash

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez Dubash

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

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Securitisation & Reconstruction of Finiancial Assets Act Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S. PRISHIJA ENERGY PRIVATE LTD.

    Adv. NITIN PADMAKAR DESHPANDE

  2. 2.JAYESH BHALCHANDRA KAJREKAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SARASWAT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. Advocate - V DESHPANDE AND COMPANY

  2. 2.RECOVERY DEPARTMENT PUNE

    Adv. V DESHPANDE AND COMPANY

  3. 3.THE COLLECTOR PUNE

  4. 4.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez DubashView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/6095/2026 The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Prishija Energy Private Limited and Jayesh Bhalchandra Kajrekar challenging a Competent Magistrate's order under the Securitisation Act, 2002. The court held that since borrowers have a statutory remedy available under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. The court emphasized that despite Supreme Court precedent, High Courts continue to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 while ignoring available statutory remedies, and dismissed the petition while permitting petitioners to pursue their statutory remedy before the DRT. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-May-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez Dubash

  4. 22-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/6095/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/6095/2026 The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Prishija Energy Private Limited and Jayesh Bhalchandra Kajrekar challenging a Competent Magistrate's order under the Securitisation Act, 2002. The court held that since borrowers have a statutory remedy available under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. The court emphasized that despite Supreme Court precedent, High Courts continue to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 while ignoring available statutory remedies, and dismissed the petition while permitting petitioners to pursue their statutory remedy before the DRT. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case