908_WP11122_26.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11122 OF 2026 Jayesh Keshavji Vora and another … Petitioners Vs. Bank of India … Respondents Mr. Anup Lahoti for Petitioners. CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2026 P.C. : . Heard Mr. Lahoti, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are original borrowers, who have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. This writ petition was mentioned yesterday for urgent circulation for today on the ground that auction sale of the secured asset is slated for today (25.08.2026) as per notice issued by the respondent bank (secured creditor). 4. The petitioners have an alternative efficacious statutory remedy of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act) to air their grievance. As a matter of fact, admittedly, the petitioners have already filed securitisation application before the DRT-II, Mumbai for appropriate reliefs. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, (2010) 8 SCC 110, has held that in the 1/2 MINAL SANDIP PARAB Digitally signed by MINAL SANDIP PARAB Date: 2026.08.25 17:49:57 +0530 908_WP11122_26.doc face of such an alternative efficacious statutory remedy, the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain the writ petitions. It appears that despite the said position of law being repeatedly indicated by the Supreme Court, the High Courts were still entertaining the writ petitions, and therefore in the case of Celir LLP Vs. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and others, (2024) 2 SCC 1, the Supreme Court was constrained to observe as follows:- “101. More than a decade back, this Court had expressed serious concern despite its repeated pronouncements in regard to the High Courts ignoring the availability of statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even after, the decision of this Court in Satyawati Tondon, it appears that the High Courts have continued to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ignoring the statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act.” 6. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that present writ petition cannot be entertained. In any case, the petitioners have already approached DRT-II, Mumbai by filing securitisation application. They are at liberty to pursue the same. Needless to say, the steps taken by the respondent bank as secured creditor would be tested by the DRT in the said securitisation application filed by the petitioners. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to pursue their pending securitisation application before the DRT-II, Mumbai. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. 8. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) 2/2 Minal Parab