Both DRT & DRAT Are Within Jurisdiction Of Principal Seat: Bombay High Court Rejects Request For Petition Transfer To Kolhapur Circuit Bench

The High Court was considering a civil matter raising the issue of the transfer of a petition originally filed and registered at the Principal Seat to the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur.

The Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat held, “Both, the DRT i.e. the Original Authority and DRAT i.e. the Appellate Authority, are within the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of the High Court.”

“In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that with the establishment of the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur and in the light of introduction of Rule 3A of the said Rules, this Principal Seat has lost jurisdiction to entertain the present petition, deserves to be rejected. Equally, the contention deserves to be rejected that this petition must necessarily be transferred to the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur. Accordingly, the said contentions are rejected”, it added.

Advocate Ayodhya Patki represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Nikhil Rajani represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The first petitioner, a proprietary firm, took certain credit facilities from Janata Sahakari Bank Limited, and for this purpose, the other petitioners mortgaged certain properties. The loan account was declared as 'NPA' and proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act) were undertaken. The petitioners filed a securitisation application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Pune, which has jurisdiction over certain Districts in Maharashtra, including the District of Kolhapur. Meanwhile, the bank assigned the loan to the first respondent, and hence, the said respondent was a party before the DRT.

Interlocutory applications came to be filed, and the DRT set aside a sale certificate issued in favour of the fifth respondent and directed the first respondent to retain custody of movable assets and to commence the process of sale afresh. Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) at Mumbai. By the impugned order, the DRAT remanded the matters back to the DRT. The petitioners filed the writ petition, aggrieved by the said order of the DRT. Thereafter, by a Notification, the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur was established, and as per the amended rules, it exercises jurisdiction over six districts of Maharashtra, including the district of Kolhapur.

When the writ petition was taken up for consideration, the petitioners asserted that with the establishment of the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, the instant petition ought to be transferred to the Circuit Bench, as it is only the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur that has jurisdiction to consider and dispose of the petition.

Reasoning

Considering that the petitioners had invoked the writ of certiorari against the order of the Appellate Authority i.e. the DRAT, the Bench noted that the DRAT is located in Mumbai and the Original Authority, i.e. the DRT, is located in Pune.

The Bench took note of the fact that, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court as a Constitutional Court, while invoking writ of certiorari and while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, has now become overlapping, and the lines between the two have blurred.

As per the Bench, the aspect of forum convenience did 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”, it stated.

Thus, rejecting the petitioners’ submission that with the establishment of the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, the Principal Seat has lost jurisdiction, the Bench ordered, “As a consequence, this writ petition will continue to be heard at the Principal Seat at Mumbai. The writ petition shall be taken up for consideration on 30.03.2026, High on Board.”

Cause Title: M/s. Shekhar Champalal Pagaria v. CFM Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (Case No.: Writ Petition No.10011 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Ayodhya Patki, Vallabh Tokekar, Akash Kotecha

Respondent: Advocates Nikhil Rajani, Ajay Deshmane, V. Deshpande & Co., Darshit Jain, Parth Mehta, Anurag Kalavatiya, Udit Raghuwanshi, Bhavesh Joshi

Click here to read/download Order