Dismissed¶34

Nilesh Subhash Bhatiwada v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Sr Inspector of Police, Wing -a and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2026WP/2877/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition 2877 of 2026; High Court of Judicature at Bombay; Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; dismissed for non-prosecution; borrower alleging systematic financial fraud; wilful defaulter classification; adverse credit-bureau/CIBIL remarks; restraint on bank/NBFC recovery pending FIR investigation; FIR No. 512/2025; FIR No. 521/2025; DSA due-diligence guidelines for banks and NBFCs in Maharashtra; State of Maharashtra; misconceived petition; no merits adjudicated; Shree Chandrashekhar CJ; Gautam A. Ankhad J.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition No. 2877 of 2026 was dismissed for non-prosecution: the petitioner's counsel initially sought time to take instructions on withdrawal, and when the matter was twice recalled in the afternoon session no one appeared for the petitioner. ¶34

Nilesh Subhash Bhatiwada vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Sr Inspector of Police, Wing -a and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the reliefs sought by the petitioner — repayment of loans by Respondent Nos. 14-17, restraint on coercive recovery and adverse credit classification by Respondent Nos. 2-13 pending investigation of the fraud FIRs, investigation-related directions to the State, asset disclosures, declaration of bona fide victim status, and framing of DSA due-diligence guidelines — should be granted.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

¶34

Key takeaways

The Court described the petition as 'misconceived' in its opening narration; the dismissal was, however, for non-prosecution and the reliefs were not adjudicated on merits.obiter¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) — Writ Petition No. 2877 of 2026, Nilesh Subhash Bhatiwada v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., decided 26 March 2026 (Coram: Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ & Gautam A. Ankhad, J.). The petitioner, a borrower of loans from several banks/NBFCs claiming to be a bona fide victim of systematic financial fraud, sought reliefs including: repayment of all loans by Respondent Nos. 14-17; a mandamus restraining Respondent Nos. 2-13 (Banks/NBFCs) from coercive steps (recovery proceedings, wilful-defaulter classification, adverse credit-bureau reporting, attachment of salary/property) till completion of investigation and final report in FIR No. 512/2025; tagging loan accounts as 'under dispute/subject to fraud investigation' and correcting CIBIL/Experian remarks; a time-bound investigation of FIR No. 521/2025 by Respondent No. 1 including money trail, statements of similarly cheated victims, attachment of proceeds-of-crime properties and charge-sheet; disclosure of loan files, KYC documents and DSA commissions; affidavit disclosure and deposit by Respondent Nos. 14-17; declaration that the petitioner is not a wilful defaulter; and framing of guidelines for banks/NBFCs in Maharashtra on DSA due diligence and treatment of fraud-victim borrowers. Mr. V.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, sought time to take instructions on withdrawal; on the matter being recalled at around 3.00 P.M. and again at around 5.00 P.M. no one appeared. Terming the petition 'misconceived', the Court dismissed it for non-prosecution without adjudicating any relief on merits.

¶1

BDP

¶2

907 WP-2877-2026.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BHARAT

¶5

DASHARATH PANDIT

¶6

Digitally signed by BHARATDASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2026.03.27 18:44:10 +0530

¶7

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.2877 OF 2026

¶9

Nilesh Subhash Bhatiwada …. Petitioner.

¶10

V/s.

¶11

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….Respondents

¶12

None for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. G.P. with Mrs. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for the respondent no.1-State.

¶14

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

¶15

DATE : 26^TH MARCH 2026

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

The petitioner who is a borrower of loans from several banks has filed this misconceived petition and seeks following reliefs:

¶18

“A. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent No. 14 to 17 to repay all the loan with pending/bounced EMIs and clear all the dues with the interests arising out of it, that have been pending and sanctioned by respondent nos. 2 to 13 in the name of the petitioner;

¶19

B. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos. 2 to 13 (Banks/NBFCs) not to take any coercive steps (including but not limited to legal notices, recovery proceedings, classification as wilful defaulter, reporting adverse status to credit bureaus, attachment of salary or property, etc.) against the Petitioner, in respect of the loans detailed above, till completion of investigation and filing of final report in FIR No. 512/2025 and further orders of this Hon'ble Court;

BDP

907 WP-2877-2026.doc

C. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Direct Respondent Nos. 2 to 13 to tag the concerned loan accounts as "under dispute/subject to fraud investigation" and not as wilful default in their internal systems and with any credit information company (CIBIL, Experian, etc.), and to suitably correct any already reported adverse remarks, pending final outcome of the criminal case;

¶24

D. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent No. 1 to conduct a thorough, time-bound, fair and impartial investigation into the FIR No. 521/2025, including: Tracing the money trail from the Petitioner's accounts to the accounts of Respondent Nos. 14-17; Identifying and recording statements of all similarly cheated victims; Identifying and attaching movable & immovable properties of Respondent Nos. 14-17 acquired out of the proceeds of crime; and Filing a detailed charge-sheet within a fixed time-frame;

¶25

E. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent Nos. 2 to 13 to fully co-operate with the investigation, by furnishing all loan files, KYC documents, logs of DSA involvement, sanction notes, disbursement details, and any communication with Respondent Nos. 14-17, and to specifically disclose commissions paid to Respondent No. 17 as DSA;

¶26

F. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent Nos. 14 to 17 to disclose on affidavit their complete list of movable and immovable properties, bank accounts, investments, and assets and to deposit such sum as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit towards repayment of the outstanding loan amounts, to be appropriated ultimately under orders of the competent court;

¶27

G. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that, on the facts of the present case, the Petitioner is a bona fide victim of a systematic financial fraud and is not a wilful defaulter or intentional non-payer, and that any adverse classification by Respondent Banks/NBFCs is illegal and void;

¶28

H. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to frame appropriate guidelines / directions for banks and NBFCs operating in Maharashtra regarding: Due diligence and monitoring of DSAs in sourcing retail loans; Treatment of borrowers who are demonstrably victims of fraud; and a mechanism to pause recovery and credit reporting where a competent investigating agency has registered FIR indicating misuse of the borrower's account.”

¶29

After hearing the matter for sometime, Mr. V.K. Dubey, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to keep back the matter in order to take instructions from his client as to whether he

907 WP-2877-2026.doc

BDP

wishes to withdraw the Petition. The matter was thereafter called in the afternoon session at around 3.00 P.M. and thereafter at around 5.00 P.M. when no one appeared for the petitioner.

¶34

Writ Petition No.2877 of 2026 is dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶35

[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶36

Nilesh Subhash Bhatiwada v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Sr Inspector of Police, Wing -a and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Subhash Bhatiwada v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Sr Inspector of Police, Wing -a and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Newton Engineering and Chemicals Limited

Prakash Rajaram Jagtap vs The High Power Committee Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Through its Chairman

Shakti @ Lucky Vilas Innarkar vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kishore Keswani vs Union of India

Sh. Y. Shiva Reddy vs Directorate of Enforcement Zonal Office II through Assistant Director and Anr.

Sh. Y. Shiva Reddy vs Directorate of Enforcement Zonal Office II through Assistant Director and Anr.