k 1/2 3 wp 5038.26 as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5038 OF 2026 Mahesh Hiralal Kunklol ....Petitioner V/S Special Recovery Ofcer through the Ganesh Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents _________ Mr. Sarvesh Deshpande with Mr. Bharat Gadhavi and Mr. Aniket Shitole for the Petitioner. Mr. Vilas B. Tapkir with Ms. Mrunmayi Khambete for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. M.S. Srivastava, AGP for Respondent Nos.6 and 7/State. __________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 25 JUNE 2026. P.C.: 1. By this Petition, Petitioner has challenged order dated 23 September 2025 passed by Divisional Joint Registrar dismissing Revision Application No.110 of 2025 and conrming the order dated 14 February 2025 passed by the Special Recovery Ofcer. 2. I have heard Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Tapkir, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. I have considered the submissions canvassed by them. 3. The main grouse of the Petitioner is that the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 (borrowers) have already mortgaged a substantial asset with the katkam Page No. 1 of 2 k 2/2 3 wp 5038.26 as.doc Respondent No.2-Bank and instead of recovery of the outstanding loan amount by auctioning the said asset, the Bank’s Recovery Ofcer has unnecessarily attached the Bank account of the Petitioner. However, Mr. Tapkir submits that even the mortgaged asset of the borrowers has been attached by the Bank for recovery of amount covered by the Recovery Certicate. He submits that an action is being initiated for recovery of the due amount from all possible assets of the borrowers and guarantors. In that view of the matter, the apprehension sought to be expressed on behalf of the Petitioner about selective action being initiated against him does not appear to be correct. There is no dispute to the position that the Petitioner has guaranteed repayment of loan availed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4. In that view of the matter, Respondent No.2-Bank is entitled to recover the amount due and payable by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 from the Petitioner by taking all possible steps. No interference is therefore warranted in the impugned order. Writ Petition is rejected. Petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Recovery Ofcer in the event the outstanding loan amount is satised by dealing with assets of the borrowers. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) katkam Page No. 2 of 2 SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date: 2026.06.29 18:18:53 +0530