1 WP-7669-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.7669 OF 2026 [M/s Narmada Cotex and others Vs. State Bank of India] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Shri R.D. Heda, Counsel for Petitioners. Shri S.N. Kumar, Counsel for Respondent. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS , JJ. D ATE : 6 th OCTOBER, 2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In short, it is his contention that the petitioners are the borrowers of the respondent-secured creditor and because of the default made by the petitioners, there was an initiation of proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’) by the secured creditor. 3. The petitioners then challenged the action of the secured creditor by filing Securitization Application No.241 of 2026 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Nagpur seeking to protect their possession over the properties in the State of Maharashtra as well as in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He then invited our attention to Section 17(1A) of the SARFAESI Act and submitted that, in view of the said provision, the Tribunal will have a jurisdiction to deal with the property which is situated outside the State of Maharashtra. He then fairly submits that in Paragraph 3 of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is noted that the counsel for the petitioners has stated that he will not press for the relief in respect of the property situated in Madhya Pradesh. However, in view of Section 17(1A) of the SARFAESI Act, he submits that the issue regarding property situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh can also be considered and decided by the Tribunal. 2026:BHC-NAG:77-DB 2 WP-7669-2026.odt 4. We find substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. We permit the petitioners to renew their prayer in respect of the property situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur. In the event the said prayer is renewed within a period of two days from today, the Tribunal shall decide the same within a period of three weeks from today. 6. In order to balance the equities and since a statement has been made at bar that an amount of Rupees One Crore has already been deposited, we protect the possession of the petitioners for a period of fifteen days from today, after which the said interim protection shall stand lapsed. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) LANJEWAR