ISHTIYAQUE ASLAM KHAN vs DCB BANK

Judgment text excerpt

902-WPL-21712-2025.DOC Digitally IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY signed by PURTI PURTI PRASAD PRASAD PARAB ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PARAB Date: 2026.01.21 16:10:47 +0530 WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 21712 OF 2025 Ishtiyaque Aslam Khan …Petitioner Versus DCB Bank and Ors. …Respondents _______ Mr. Aseem Naphade i/b Mr. Rajendra Rathod for the Petitioner. Mr. Shashank Fadia for Respondent No.1. Mr. R.B. Mungekar a/w Mr. Sudhanshu Sawant for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. _______ CORAM: MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE: 20th JANUARY 2026. ORDER : 1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 26 th June 2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (DRAT, Mumbai). By the impugned order the DRAT, Mumbai has directed the Petitioner to deposit 40% of an amount claimed by Respondent No.1/Bank as amount due from the borrowers, i.e., Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as a precondition for entertaining the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against rejection of interim reliefs by the DRT, Mumbai, in a Securitization Application filed on behalf of the Petitioner. 3. The impugned order records that in the event the Petitioner fails to deposit 40% of the amount as directed, the Appeal would stand rejected. Since the Petitioner failed to deposit the amount in terms of the self Page 1 of 5 Purti Parab 902-WPL-21712-2025.DOC operating clause, the Appeal itself, as on today, has been rejected. 4. The principal ground of challenge raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that since the Petitioner is neither borrower nor a guarantor of the subject loan taken by the borrowers, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the condition of pre-deposit as per proviso to Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enfor