1 38wp3093.2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3093 OF 2026 (M/s. Maharashtra Traders & Ors, acting thr its partner Mr. Kapil s/o Mukundrao Thawkar, Nagpur and ors Vs. The Authorized Officer, Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd, Mahal, Nagpur) __________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders __________________________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Amol Hunge, Advocate for petitioners. Ms. Anjali Agrawal, Adv h/f Mr. R.S. Kalangiwale, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR & RAJNISH R. VYAS,JJ. DATE : 21/09/2026 Heard. 2. The petitioner No. 1, a partnership firm has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court along with petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, who are the co-borrowers/guarantors and mortgagors who availed of financial assistance from the respondent-bank. 3. A prayer is made in the petition for setting aside the order dated 27.2.2026, by which the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as “DRAT”), has rejected an application for waiver of deposit under Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as, the Act of 2002), and directed the petitioners to deposit 40% as pre-deposit amount. The DRAT also directed to deposit the amount in four installments. It was observed that, in case of failure to deposit the said amount, the appeal would stand dismissed. 4. On 16.4.2026, when the matter was listed, this Court issued notices and as the Pursis was filed by the petitioners giving an undertaking to deposit 50% of the outstanding amount within eight Belkhede 2026:BHC-NAG:12660-DB 2 38wp3093.2026.doc weeks, along with a further undertaking that in case of default in depositing the said amount, the petitioners would deposit Rs. 5 lakhs as costs in this Court, it was further directed that same shall not be finalized until further orders. 5. On 29.7.2026, the matter was again listed, on which date, as 50% of the outstanding amount had not been deposited, six weeks’ time was granted to the petitioners to deposit costs of Rs. 5,00,000/-. When the matter was listed today, the petitioners submitted that they were not in a position to deposit any amount. 6. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the case record. 7. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the DRAT by preferring an appeal before the DRAT, in which they made an application for waiver of the pre-deposit. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were engaged in liquor business and had availed financial assistance in the form of a term loan of Rs. 60 lakhs and a cash credit limit of Rs. 142 lakhs in the year 2023 for business purposes, by mortgaging the scheduled properties. It was stated that, as the petitioners were engaged in the liquor business and due to non availability of adequate stock, they suffered heavy losses. It was further stated that the rise in excise duty also further pushed the petitioners in serious financial burden, which resulted into non-payment of equal monthly installments. 8. Perusal of the documents filed with the petition reveals that not a single document, except the income tax return, has been filed on record to substantiate the contention of the petitioners. Further, it cannot be ignored that statute mandates pre-deposit of the amount. Just because the petitioners are not in a position to deposit the amount due to losses suffered, same would not be a ground enough to interfere with Belkhede 3 38wp3093.2026.doc the well reasoned order passed by the DRAT. In fact, the DRAT had directed the petitioners to deposit the amount within four installments. Not only the order of the DRAT showing mercy was not honoured, but the undertaking given to this Court regarding deposit of the amount was also not complied with. 9. We do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the DRAT in passing the order impugned and therefore, the petition is dismissed. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) Belkhede Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 28/09/2026 16:51:49