17_WP9516_26.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9516 OF 2026 Shagufta Tarique Khan … Petitioner Vs. Union Bank of India and others … Respondents Mr. Mandar Soman i/b. Mr. Vivek Vasant Phadke for Petitioner. Mr. Anup Khaitan a/w. Mr. Harsh Gutka and Akshita Rathudi i/b. Anup Khaitan & Co. for Respondent No.1. CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : JULY 27, 2026 P.C. : . Heard Mr. Soman, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been urgently circulated for today as the respondent No.1 bank is to take physical possession of the subject property today in terms of a notice dated 08.07.2026. 3. The petitioner has, inter alia, challenged Notice dated 30.03.2026 issued by the Assistant Registrar of Debts Recovery Tribunal - III, Mumbai (DRT), which specifies a particular procedure for taking up all urgent matters for consideration by the DRT. It is claimed that the said Notice is arbitrary as it leaves no scope for a genuine case to be listed before the DRT within the appropriate time period, as in this case. 4. It is brought to our notice that the petitioner was constrained to file a miscellaneous application before the DRT, being aggrieved by the aforesaid notice dated 08.07.2026 issued by the Advocate Court Receiver, threatening to take physical possession of the subject property today i.e. on 27.07.2026. It was submitted that the procedural rigmarole 1/4 MINAL SANDIP PARAB Digitally signed by MINAL SANDIP PARAB Date: 2026.07.27 14:57:52 +0530 17_WP9516_26.doc of getting the miscellaneous application registered and listed in terms of the Notice dated 30.03.2026 virtually leaves no scope for consideration of urgent interim order, and therefore, the Notice is arbitrary. 5. Respondent No.1 Bank is represented by counsel, who informs this Court that the amount due in the present case, is about Rs.1.20 crores as on 15.04.2026. 6. At first blush, we were of the impression that since there is grave urgency in the matter, the writ petition could perhaps be entertained. But, a perusal of the admitted facts indicate otherwise. Original Application No.252 of 2011 filed by the respondent No.1 bank, with regard to credit facility advanced in the present case way back in the year 2009, was allowed on 06.03.2023 and a recovery certificate was directed to be issued as per the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. 7. The petitioner is the wife of the proprietor of the original borrower. It is an admitted position that she was resisting execution of the said order of the DRT for the past about three years. On 24.10.2025, the objection raised by the petitioner was rejected by taking note of the fact that she was seeking to resist execution on the ground that the subject property had been gifted to her by her husband by a registered gift deed dated 24.11.2022. It was found that the mortgage by deposit of title deed was created in favour of the respondent No.1 Bank as far back as on 03.06.2009, and thereafter, the said gift deed dated 24.11.2022 was executed. The recovery officer in the execution proceeding rendered a finding that the aforesaid act of executing the gift deed was nothing but a deliberate attempt to defeat and evade the recovery process. It is to be noted that the said order was also passed as far back as on 24.10.2025. Thereafter, one attempt of taking physical possession did not materialize and the aforesaid notice dated 08.07.2026 for taking possession today 2/4 17_WP9516_26.doc (27.07.2026) is the second attempt. 8. In this backdrop, as recently as on 21.07.2026, the petitioner chose to file the miscellaneous application. We are of the opinion that the grave urgency being projected on behalf of the petitioner is belied by her own conduct of refusing to take any steps with regard to the original order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the DRT and the aforesaid order dated 24.10.2025 passed on her application by the recovery officer in the execution proceedings. Such a petitioner cannot be heard to say that the procedural rigmarole contained in the Notice dated 30.03.2026 is oppressive or arbitrary. A deliberate attempt appears to have been made to delay the challenge as close as possible to the actual date of taking physical possession, in order to knock the doors of the Writ Court to gain sympathy in the matter. We are not at all impressed with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. In any case, the aforesaid Notice does indicate that in exceptional cases, the requirement of filing a service affidavit at least 72 hours prior to the date of listing of the matter, can be exempted. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner is at pains to point out that although the Notice may indicate a different treatment for ‘exceptional cases’, in practical terms, the litigants are facing serious inconvenience due to the said Notice dated 30.03.2026. 10. We are of the opinion that a case has to be decided on its own facts and the challenge to the Notice will have to be decided in a case where the petitioner is able to demonstrate that despite bona fide efforts being made, it is impossible to comply with the requirements of the said Notice in an urgent matter. 11. We have already noticed the facts hereinabove, which do not impress us with regard to the manner in which the miscellaneous 3/4 17_WP9516_26.doc application is filed as recently as on 21.07.2026, despite the aforementioned order dated 06.03.2023 of the DRT, of which the petitioner was aware and the order dated 24.10.2025 on her own application being rejected by the recovery officer in execution proceedings. 12. We see no reason to show indulgence to such a petitioner, while exercising writ jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. 13. Nonetheless, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits and the contentions sought to be raised by the petitioner in the miscellaneous application. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue the same before the Presiding Officer of the DRT. 14. The DRT would take into consideration the miscellaneous application on its own merits, without being influenced by the order passed today in this writ petition. 15. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) 4/4 Minal Parab