BHARATKUMAR SOHANSINGH RAJPUROHIT AND ORS vs BANK OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS CHIEF MANAGER — WP/6798/2026

Case under Securitisation & Reconstruction of Finiancial Assets Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 11th June 2026.

CNR: HCBM010221842026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

WP/12932/2026

Filing Date

29-04-2026

Registration No

WP/6798/2026

Registration Date

22-05-2026

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

DRT Matters ( 103 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

11th June 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Acts & Sections

Securitisation & Reconstruction of Finiancial Assets Act Section NA

Petitioner(s)

BHARATKUMAR SOHANSINGH RAJPUROHIT AND ORS

Adv. Yash Arora

MUKESHKUMAR SOHANSINGH RAJPUROHIT

Respondent(s)

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS CHIEF MANAGER

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHREERAM VINAYAK SHIRSAT

11-06-2026

FRESH ADMISSION

Orders

11-06-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHREERAM VINAYAK SHIRSAT

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by borrowers Bharatkumar and Mukeshkumar Rajpurohit challenging a Competent Magistrate's order under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act, 2002. The court held that the Magistrate performs a ministerial function under Section 14 and is not required to grant hearing to borrowers. The court directed that borrowers have an adequate statutory remedy to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal to ventilate their grievances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by borrowers Bharatkumar and Mukeshkumar Rajpurohit challenging a Competent Magistrate's order under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act, 2002. The court held that the Magistrate performs a ministerial function under Section 14 and is not required to grant hearing to borrowers. The court directed that borrowers have an adequate statutory remedy to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal to ventilate their grievances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Securitisation & Reconstruction of Finiancial Assets Act All acts →

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case