SHANKARRAO PAWAR SEAT CORNER THR AUTHORIZED PARTNER AND ORS vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS — WP/7320/2026
Case under Securitisation & Reconstruction of Finiancial Assets Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 12th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM010263202026
Filing Number
WP/15299/2026
Filing Date
08-06-2026
Registration No
WP/7320/2026
Registration Date
11-06-2026
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
12th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHANKARRAO PAWAR SEAT CORNER THR AUTHORIZED PARTNER AND ORS
Adv. S S KOTHIYA
RAJESH EKNATH PAWAR
GIRIJA EKNATH PAWAR
AMAR EKNATH PAWAR
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND ORS
THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/ DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PUNE
THE SENIOR INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SMFG INDIA CREDIT COMPANY LTD.
SANDEEP OMPRAKASH AGARWAL
THE REGISTRAR
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHREERAM VINAYAK SHIRSAT
FOR CIRCULATION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-06-2026 | FOR CIRCULATION |
Orders
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by original borrowers challenging a DRT order directing removal of movables from a foreclosed property. The court held that since the petitioners themselves filed the waiver application for pre-deposit before DRAT as statutorily required, the matter should proceed before DRAT and writ jurisdiction was inappropriate as the reliefs sought were identical to those pending in the appellate proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by original borrowers challenging a DRT order directing removal of movables from a foreclosed property. The court held that since the petitioners themselves filed the waiver application for pre-deposit before DRAT as statutorily required, the matter should proceed before DRAT and writ jurisdiction was inappropriate as the reliefs sought were identical to those pending in the appellate proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts