Disposed¶7

Lemon Futermal Jain v. Indian Bank Thr Managing Director and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Feb 2026WP/2360/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: securitisation application; Debts Recovery Tribunal-III Mumbai; DRT-I in charge of DRT-III matters; expeditious disposal; peremptory direction refused due to heavy workload of DRT presiding officers; pleadings complete; Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 35395 of 2024; Interim Application No. 887 of 2025; orders dated 28.02.2025 and 10.11.2025. Relevance for advocates: records this Court's treatment of a prayer to expedite a pending securitisation matter — no time-bound/peremptory mandate issued, only an endeavour direction to the in-charge Tribunal subject to workload.

What did the court decide?

Direction that DRT-I (in charge of DRT-III) make an effort to hear and dispose of the pending securitisation application expeditiously, subject to present workload; the writ petition is disposed of on that basis. ¶7

Lemon Futermal Jain vs Indian Bank Thr Managing Director and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

24_WP_2360_26.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2360 OF 2026

¶4

Lemon Futermal Jain … Petitioner vs. Indian Bank, Through Managing Director & anr. … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Taranjit Singh for petitioner.

¶6

Ms. Tejasvi Dalvi a/w. Mr. Sameer Khedekar for respondent No.1-bank. Mr. Lemon Futermal Jain, petitioner in-person.

¶7

CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ DATE : 26^th FEBRUARY, 2026

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

By this petition, the petitioner has approached this Court essentially seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of the pending securitisation application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai (DRT).

¶11

It is to be noted that on a earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition (Lodging) No.35395 of 2024, seeking such direction, which was disposed of by an order dated 28.02.2025, when the petitioner was permitted to approach the DRT for expeditious disposal of the pending matters. Thereafter, an interim application was moved in the disposed of writ petition, seeking direction to dispose of an interim application filed in the securitisation application, which prayed for expeditious hearing of the securitisation application. By an order dated 10.11.2025, the

¶12

PRIYA Digitally signedby PRIYAKAMBLI KAMBLI Date:2026.02.2718:20:03 +0530

¶13

1/2

¶14

24_WP_2360_26.doc

¶15

interim application filed before this Court was disposed of with a direction to the DRT to dispose of Interim Application No.887 of 2025 filed by the petitioner for expeditious hearing of the securitisation application.

¶16

It is an admitted position that the DRT heard and disposed of the said Interim Application No.887 of 2025, allowing the same and recording that an attempt shall be made to dispose of the securitisation application at an early date. We are aware about the fact that as on today, DRT-III is not available and DRT-I is incharge of matters pertaining to DRT-III.

¶17

We are of the opinion that in the light of the heavy workload on the presiding officers of the DRT, it would not be appropriate to issue peremptory order for disposing of the securitisation application. We are informed that the pleadings are complete.

¶18

Hence, it would be appropriate that DRT-I, incharge of DRT-III makes an effort to hear and dispose of the securitisation application expeditiously, subject to present workload.

¶19

7. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶20

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J)

¶21

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶22

Priya Kambli

¶23

2/2

Lemon Futermal Jain v. Indian Bank Thr Managing Director and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lemon Futermal Jain v. Indian Bank Thr Managing Director and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandankumar Ramjibhai Shah vs State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Mohammed Akram Mohammed Basheer Ansari vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Abdul Kadar Nooji vs State of Maharashtra Throu.Its Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Mohandas Chhataram through Its Partner, Pankaj Somaiya vs Union of India through the Ministry of Corporate Affairs

Vishal Ganpat Shinde vs Union of India Thorough the Ministry of Corporate Affairs

Jayprakash Pundalikrao Baviskar vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Anr.