HARI DATTATRAY SHINDE vs CANARA BANK AND ANR — WP/6795/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010225302026

Filing Number

WP/13138/2026

Filing Date

30-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/6795/2026

Registration Date

22-May-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

11-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Securitisation & Reconstruction of Finiancial Assets Act Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HARI DATTATRAY SHINDE

    Adv. Adv v j ghorpade

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.CANARA BANK AND ANR

  2. 2.AUTHORIZED OFFICER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak ShirsatView PDF

    The Bombay High Court dismissed Hari Dattatray Shinde's writ petition challenging a demand notice issued by Canara Bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The court held that statutory remedies are available under the Securitisation Act, making the writ petition not maintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Jun-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat

  4. 30-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/6795/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed Hari Dattatray Shinde's writ petition challenging a demand notice issued by Canara Bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The court held that statutory remedies are available under the Securitisation Act, making the writ petition not maintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case