Establishment Of Kolhapur Bench No Ground To Say Mumbai Seat Lost Jurisdiction Over Writ Against DRAT Order: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that the creation of the Kolhapur Circuit Bench does not divest the Principal Seat at Mumbai of jurisdiction over a writ petition challenging an order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, even where the dispute originates in Kolhapur district.

A Division Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat made the observation while hearing a writ petition challenging a September 19, 2024 order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) in Mumbai which remanded a dispute to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Pune for fresh consideration.

“We also find that in the present case, the aspect of forum convenience can also not come to the aid of the petitioners. This is apart from the fact that both the Original Authority at Pune as well as the Appellate Authority at Mumbai are within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court. The petitioners had filed the appeal before the DRAT at Mumbai and they also had filed this writ petition before the Principal Seat at Mumbai. Although it is forcefully submitted on behalf of the petitioners that at the point in time when they filed the petition, they did not have a choice because the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur was yet to be established, we find that even if such choice became subsequently available, only on the ground of forum convenience, it cannot be said that this Principal Seat at Mumbai has lost jurisdiction to further hear and entertain the present writ petition,” the court observed.

The dispute arose after a proprietary firm obtained credit facilities from Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., for which certain properties were mortgaged. After the loan account was classified as a non-performing asset, proceedings were initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

The borrowers approached the DRT at Pune through a securitisation application challenging the recovery measures taken by the bank. On February 22, 2023, the DRT set aside a sale certificate issued in favour of respondent No.5 and directed respondent No.1 to retain custody of the movable assets and undertake the sale process afresh.

The asset reconstruction company that had taken assignment of the loan challenged this order before the DRAT in Mumbai. By its order dated September 19, 2024, the appellate tribunal remanded the matter to the DRT after holding that the tribunal's earlier order was a non-speaking order.

The writ petition before the High Court challenges the DRAT Mumbai's remand order. When the matter first came up on July 31, 2025, the court issued notice and directed that the DRT should not restart the sale proceedings afresh until the next date of hearing. That interim direction has continued to remain in force while the petition is pending.

In the meantime, the institutional landscape of the court itself changed. A notification issued on August 1, 2025 created the Kolhapur Circuit Bench of the Bombay High Court. The bench was formally inaugurated on August 16, 2025 and now exercises jurisdiction over six districts, including Kolhapur.

Pointing to this development, the petitioners argued that the writ petition should no longer remain before the Principal Seat in Mumbai. According to them, the dispute traces back to Ichalkaranji in Kolhapur district. The loan was sanctioned from a branch there and the secured assets are also located in the same district. Invoking Rule 3A of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, they submitted that the case ought to be transferred to the Kolhapur Circuit Bench. They also maintained that Kolhapur would be the more convenient forum for pursuing the proceedings.

Rejecting the contention, the court noted that the original authority in the case is the DRT at Pune and the appellate authority is the DRAT at Mumbai. Both authorities fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court's Principal Seat at Mumbai.

Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Nasrudin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the bench observed that an appellate order forms part of the cause of action. Therefore, a writ petition challenging such an order can be entertained by the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the appellate authority is situated.

The bench held that the creation of the Kolhapur Circuit Bench and the introduction of Rule 3A did not mean that the Principal Seat automatically lost jurisdiction over the matter.

The court therefore rejected the plea seeking transfer of the petition to the Kolhapur Circuit Bench. It directed that the writ petition will continue to be heard at the Principal Seat in Mumbai.

The matter has been listed for further consideration on March 30, 2026 during which the interim order will remain operational.