Indian Bank vs Ld. District Magistrate and Collector… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2026)

Indian Bank vs Ld. District Magistrate and Collector… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondent No.1 (District Magistrate and Collector, Daman) directed to decide the petitioner bank's Section 14 Securitization Act application filed on 06.05.2024 at the earliest and in any case within four weeks; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1 (District Magistrate and Collector, Daman) should be directed to expeditiously decide the petitioner bank's application filed on 06.05.2024 under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act, 2002, which had remained unconsidered for more than a year despite reminders.

Court's answer

Since the application under Section 14 of the Securitization Act was filed as far back as 06.05.2024, respondent No.1 Magistrate was expected to take it up for consideration at the earliest and dispose of it in accordance with law; that not having been done, the Court was inclined to allow the petition to the limited extent of issuing a direction to respondent No.1.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was allowed and respondent No.1 was directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner bank on 06.05.2024 under Section 14 of the Securitization Act at the earliest and, in any case, within four weeks from the date of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Indian Bank through its Chief Manager v. District Magistrate and Collector, Daman (Writ Petition No. 699 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Manish Pitale & Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ., decided 21 January 2026): The petitioner bank sought a limited direction that its application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitization Act), filed on 06.05.2024 before respondent No.1, be decided expeditiously; as submitted, despite reminders the application had lain unconsidered for over a year. Holding that respondent No.1 Magistrate was expected to take up the application for consideration at the earliest and dispose of it in accordance with law, the Court allowed the writ petition to that limited extent and directed respondent No.1 to decide the application at the earliest and, in any case, within four weeks. Service of notice on respondent No.2 was dispensed with in view of the limited reliefs; pending applications stood disposed of. No precedents were cited and no monetary quantum arose.

10_WP699_26.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.699 OF 2026

Indian Bank through Deepak Kumar Vaishnav, Chief Manager

… Petitioner

Vs.

District Magistrate and Collector, Daman and anr. … Respondents

Adv. Tejasvi Dalvi for Petitioner.

Dr. Sanjay Jain a/w. Mr. Aayush Kedia for Respondent No.1.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE &

SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2026

P.C. :

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

Considering the limited reliefs sought in this petition, service of notice on respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

A limited direction sought by the petitioner, in the present petition, is that an application filed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitization Act) on behalf of the petitioner bank, as far back as on 06.05.2024 needs to be decided expeditiously.

It is submitted that despite reminders being given to the respondent No.1 i.e. the authority before whom the said application is pending, there is no response and more than a year has gone by and yet there is no consideration of the application. It is submitted that in the interest of justice, this Court may consider issuing appropriate direction.

MINALSANDIPPARAB Digitally signed byMINAL SANDIPPARABDate: 2026.01.2117:21:17 +0530

1/2

10_WP699_26.doc

We find that since the application under Section 14 of the Securitization Act was filed as far back as on 06.05.2024, respondent No.1 Magistrate was expected to take up an application for consideration at the earliest and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. The same having not being done, we are inclined to allow the petition to the limited extent by issuing direction to the respondent No.1.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent No.1 is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner bank on 06.05.2024 under Section 14 of the Securitization Act at the earliest and in any case, within four weeks from today.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

Minal Parab

2/2