Disposed¶24

Dcb Bank Ltd. v. Tara Pandurang Kulkarni

Bombay HC6 Mar 2026WP/2672/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: DCB Bank Ltd; Tara Pandurang Kulkarni; Writ Petition No. 2672 of 2026; Bombay High Court; Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) Mumbai; Appeal No. 28 of 2025; time bound disposal; expeditious disposal; interim relief in pending appeal; secured creditor; Respondent No. 1 as Appellant; deadline 29th May 2026; notice not issued; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to DRAT, Mumbai to expedite completion of service of notices and pleadings in Appeal No. 28 of 2025 and to hear and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, in any case on or before 29th May 2026; Writ Petition disposed without issuance of notice to Respondents; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶24

Dcb Bank Ltd. vs Tara Pandurang Kulkarni — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should direct the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai, to dispose of pending Appeal No. 28 of 2025 in a time bound manner.

¶19

Court's answer

As the Petitioners seek only a limited prayer, notice to the Respondents need not be issued; disposal of the pending appeal at the earliest is in the interest of all parties.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

DRAT, Mumbai is directed to ensure that the Appellant (Respondent No. 1) completes service of notices and that pleadings are completed expeditiously so that the appeal can be taken up and disposed of expeditiously; the DRAT is also directed to ensure all such steps are taken at the earliest.

¶21

Key takeaways

Appeal No. 28 of 2025 shall be heard and disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in any case on or before 29th May 2026.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Manish Pitale & Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ.), 11 March 2026, disposed of Writ Petition No. 2672 of 2026 filed by DCB Bank Ltd and Anr. seeking a direction for time bound disposal of Appeal No. 28 of 2025 pending before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai, where Respondent No. 1 (the Appellant before the DRAT) and effectively Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were enjoying interim relief, causing prejudice to Petitioner No. 1, a secured creditor. Observing that the Petitioners' prayer was limited, the Court issued no notice to the Respondents and directed DRAT, Mumbai to ensure that the Appellant completes service of notices and pleadings expeditiously and to hear and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, in any case on or before 29th May 2026. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

¶1

906-wp-2672-2026.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2672 OF 2026

¶5

DCB Bank Ltd and Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. Tara Pandurang Kulkarni and Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Nikhil Rajani i/by V. Deshpande and Co, for the Petitioners. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, for Respondent No. 7, Union of India.

¶7

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA DEEPAK DEEPAK GAIKWAD GAIKWAD Date: 2026.03.11 14:48:20 +0530

¶8

CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 11^th MARCH 2026.

¶9

PC:

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners.

¶11

Petitioner-Bank has approached this Court for limited relief.

¶12

A direction is sought for time bound disposal in pending Appeal No. 28 of 2025 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai.

¶13

We are informed that the Respondent No. 1 (Appellant before the DRAT) and effectively Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are also enjoying an interim relief in the pending appeal.

¶14

Petitioner No. 1 is a secured creditor, and it is submitted that pendency of the appeal along with the interim relief is causing

1 of 2

varsha

906-wp-2672-2026.doc

prejudice to the Petitioner.

¶19

In that light, it is submitted that this Court may consider issuing a direction for disposal of the appeal in a time bound manner.

¶20

Since the Petitioners are seeking the aforesaid limited prayer, we are of the opinion that notice need not be issued to the Respondents. It is in the interest of all the parties that the pending appeal itself be disposed of at the earliest.

¶21

Hence, the DRAT, Mumbai, is directed to ensure that the Appellant i.e. Respondent No.1 herein takes all necessary steps for completing the process of service of notice etc. at the earliest and pleadings are completed expeditiously so that the appeal itself can be taken up for consideration and disposed of in an expeditious manner.

¶22