ROZINA FIROZ HAJIANI vs UNION OF INDIA (THRU. MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS)

Judgment text excerpt

bipin prithiani 1 wpl-5157.26.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 5157 OF 2026 Rozina Firoz Hajiani & Ors. … Petitioners Versus Union of India, through Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors. … Respondents ****** Mr. Siddharth Samantaray a/w Mr. Harsh Ramesh Gutka and Mr. Aayush Kothari i/by Mr. Harsh Ramesh Gutka for the Petitioners. Mr. Charles Dsouza a/w Adv. Rupak, Mr. Anup Khaitan, Ms. Akshita Rathudi and Adv. Niomi Harshad Vakani for Respondent No.2-Bank. Ms. Kruti Bhavsar a/w Mr. Pratik Barot and Mr. Angel Pandey for Respondent Nos.3 to 7. Mr. Vikash Anand, Bank Officer, present. ****** CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 18th MARCH 2026 ORDER (Per Manish Pitale, J.) : . A disturbing trend is noticed by this writ Court as to the manner in which chronic defaulters are taking resort to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IBC’ for short) to frustrate secured creditors and auction purchasers from proceeding, in accordance with law, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Securitisation Act’ for short). bipin prithiani 2 wpl-5157.26.doc 2. In a number of such matters, it is found that the borrowers/ guarantors act as fence sitters and do not take any steps when the secured creditors proceed under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act and take further consequential steps, till the culmination of the process and auction purchasers coming into the picture. At the stage when the auction sale has been conducted and the auction purchaser has come into the picture, in a few instances, even after the sale certifi