1 901wp425.2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 425 OF 2026 (Mrs. Vidya w/o Hemant Saraf Vs. The ManagingDirector & CEO Central Bank of India and ors) __________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders __________________________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Pritesh Bansod, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Awadhoot T. Purohit, Adv a/w Mr. tufel Sharif, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Dayal Gohade, Adv h/f Mr. C.J. Dhumane, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR & RAJNISH R. VYAS,JJ. DATE : 21/08/2026 Heard. 2. In the present petition, classification of the petitioner as NPA is under challenge. 3. This Court, vide order dated 19.1.2026, while issuing notice, observed that the issue involved in the petition is sub judice before the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and therefore, directed not to proceed further under Section 13(4) of the Securatisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”). 4. It is the case of the petitioner that without granting opportunity of revival or restructuring, and though a request in that regard was made, without taking decision, the petitioner’s account was classified as NPA. 5. Mr. Awdhoot Purohit, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 has pointed out that after this order dated 19.1.2026, a request of the petitioner for restructuring was considered and vide communication dated 2.2.2026, it was observed that restructuring is Belkhede 2 901wp425.2026.doc not viable. The reasons stated in the said communication to arrive at the conclusion that restructuring is not viable, are as follows: “i) A recent inspection of the borrower's business premises revealed that the actual stock available at the shop of the New Yogi Traders is valued at approximately Rs 20 Lakh, significantly lower than the sanctioned limit. ii) TL 3 Crore, WC Z crore (Renewal) by RLCC Sanction dated 20.07.2023 CC Cent GST 2 Crore limit. Credit Debit Summation Credit from 01.04.2024 to 31/03/2025 credit 17591425.14, debit 178096-49.01 soles are not routed in account. iii) Sales ore not justifying as per the limit and as per the Balance sheet given for the Sanction of TL & CC, during the visit customer told the transactions are done in cash, as the transactions are not justifying. iv) Periodic Stock statement not submitted by the borrower. (v) The party as per the agreed terms of sanction advice dated 19/07/2023 is not routing transactions through the Cash Credit account, which has led to irregular account activity and slipped into NPA eventually on dated 15.10.2025. iv) The borrowers have failed to service the interest charged on the accounts, further aggravating the situation. vii) The party has reported facing financial difficulties, which appear to be impacting their ability to meet repayment obligations. viii) The significant discrepancy between usage of bank funds upto the sanctioned limit and actual stock value/debtors indicates potential mismanagement or diversion of funds. 6. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the copy of this decision was never served upon the petitioner. Belkhede 3 901wp425.2026.doc 7. In reply, Mr. Purohit learned counsel has pointed out that at the bottom of every page of this communication dated 2.2.2026, there is a signature of husband of the petitioner. 8. Since, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that this document was not received by the petitioner, we adjourn the matter for ½ hour to grant an opportunity to the learned counsel to verify the fact whether such letter was received by the petitioner or not. 9. On verification, learned counsel petitioner makes a statement that this letter was never received by the petitioner, however, the signature on every page is of the husband of the petitioner. In the next breath, he disputed the signature of the husband of the petitioner. 10. Be that as it may, in writ jurisdiction, we cannot go into the dispute relating to genuineness of the signature or the allegation of fabrication of the same. 11. The basis for filing the present petition was that the classification of petitioner's loan account as NPA is illegal for the reason that prayer of the petitioner for restructuring was not considered. Now, such prayer has been considered and petitioner’s account held to be not viable for restructuring. 12. For us, till the time, the petitioner establishes the fact that the signature on the letter dated 2.2.2026 is not of her husband, it is difficult to accept that it was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. It is to be noted that after 2.2.2026, in last six months, what steps the petitioner has taken in the matter has not brought on record. Moreover, there is no challenge raised to any of the grounds mentioned in the letter to say that the restructuring is not viable. Belkhede 4 901wp425.2026.doc 13. For the above referred reasons, we dispose of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum with appropriate proceeding, as permissible under the law. The petition is disposed of. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) Belkhede Signed by: Mr. R. S. Belkhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 25/08/2026 09:54:40