Bombay High Court Recommends Removal Of DRT Nagpur Presiding Officer, Finds He Lacks Basic Legal Knowledge

The Bombay High Court at Nagpur on Thursday recommended that the Union government immediately remove Presiding Officer Pankaj Kumar from the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Nagpur.

The bench found him unfit to continue in office and noted his wilful disobedience of the court's directions.

Justices Anil S. Kilor and Raj D. Wakode, while recommending his removal, observed that Kumar was unfit to continue in the position.

"...the present respondent is not suitable for adorning the post of Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal. Time and again, we have granted him sufficient time to improve his conduct. However, after hearing him personally in Chamber and interacting with him, we are completely satisfied that he does not deserve to continue as the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur, even for a single day. We have also realized that holding him guilty and punishing him for contempt will not resolve the issue.”,it observed.

It therefore ordered, "Accordingly, we dispose of the present contempt petition with a recommendation to the Union of India to remove Shri Pankaj Kumar from the post of Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur, with immediate effect. If, for any reason, it is not possible for the Union of India to do so, we hereby recommend to the Union of India to immediately transfer Shri. Pankaj Kumar from the post of Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur."

The contempt petition arose from an earlier order directing the DRT, Nagpur, to decide a pending securitization application within six months from November 14, 2025. After recording a prima facie finding that its order had been wilfully and deliberately disobeyed, the court issued a contempt notice to Presiding Officer Pankaj Kumar and directed him to remain personally present.

Pankaj Kumar appeared before the bench in compliance with the notice. Considering that he was a senior judicial officer, the judges heard the matter in chambers instead of in open court. During the interaction, they found that he lacked even basic knowledge of legal jurisprudence and found him to be biased against borrowers.

“After interacting with respondent, we find that he is not at all aware as to what is the essence of a Presiding Officer of a judicial or quasi-judicial Tribunal,” the bench observed.

The judges noted that, in his view, borrowers who had defaulted on bank dues did not deserve any relief. He also maintained that borrowers approached the tribunal by filing interlocutory applications at the last minute and that such applications could not be decided.

The bench, however, recorded that in most cases borrowers filed those applications at least a month before the scheduled possession date. Even then, the presiding officer kept adjourning the matters from day to day until the last day of possession without deciding the applications, leaving borrowers to approach the high court for urgent protection.

The court recalled that it had directed the DRT to decide the securitisation application within six months from November 14, 2025. Despite that direction, Presiding Officer Pankaj Kumar adjourned the matter on March 24, 2026, by another seven months and listed it for October 21, 2026.

When questioned about the seven-month adjournment, he told the bench that the parties had not appeared before him and that he could not decide the securitisation application ex parte.

The court, however, examined the roznama and found that the order dated March 24, 2026, itself recorded the presence of counsel for both sides.

“...the respondent not only lacks judicial knowledge but has also tendered an incorrect and false explanation before this Court, especially when he is standing before this Court in contempt,” the bench ruled.

Holding that the seven-month adjournment, despite its earlier direction to decide the matter within six months, showed that he was not fit to continue as presiding officer, the court recommended that the Union of India remove Presiding Officer Pankaj Kumar from the DRT, Nagpur, with immediate effect.

If removal was not possible, it recommended that he be transferred immediately.

Although the contempt petition has been disposed of, the bench directed that it be listed again on September 4, 2026, for the Union of India to submit its compliance report.

For Petitioner: Advocate Yash R Bhumare

Respondent-in-person: Pankaj Kumar