Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bombay High Court

Pushpam Plaza Pvt. Ltd. And Anr vs Punjab National Bank And Anr on 16 January, 2026

Author: Manish Pitale

Bench: Manish Pitale

bipin prithiani
                                           1
                                                                 p1-wp-12669.25.doc

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 12669 OF 2025

Pushpam Plaza Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.                        ...        Petitioners
     Versus
Punjab National Bank & Anr.                           ...        Respondents
                            ******
Adv. Somya i/by Kalyani Wagle for the Petitioners.
Mrs. Sudha Koloti for Respondent No.1-Bank.
Mr. Miheer S. Jayakar a/w Ms. Gunjan Jayakar for Respondent
No.2.
                            ******
                       CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
                                  SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

DATE : 16th JANUARY 2026 P.C. :

. Not on board. Mentioned by way of praecipe on behalf of the original petitioners.

2. It is brought to our notice that by an order dated 13 th October 2025, a Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of this writ petition, had directed the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Pune to dispose of the pending Securitization Application Nos. 65 of 2024 and 556 of 2025, within a period of three months from the date of the order.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the said applications could not be disposed of by the DRT, this Court may consider granting extension of time.

bipin prithiani 2 p1-wp-12669.25.doc

4. The learned counsel for the original respondent No.2 i.e. the Auction Purchaser submits that the petitioners had moved application for amendment before the DRT, which was allowed, but while carrying out amendment, certain paragraphs not forming part of the proposed amendment, were added. As a consequence, the said respondent was constrained to move application for dismissal of the securitization application on the ground of such fraud being committed on the DRT. The learned counsel for original respondent No.2 submits that this Court may issue appropriate directions with regard to insertion of such additional paragraphs and thereupon, extension for limited period may be granted, with a further direction that no further extension would be granted. It was alleged that the petitioners are deliberately delaying the proceedings before the DRT. The said allegation is refuted on behalf of the petitioners and it is submitted that the petitioners will cooperate with the DRT for expeditious disposal.

5. In order to reduce the controversy, we direct that the DRT, Pune shall ignore paragraphs 5.12 to 5.16 inserted in Securitization Application No. 65 of 2024, while hearing and disposing of the said application along with the connected application. This takes care of the concern raised on behalf of the respondent No.2.

6. The DRT, Pune is granted extension of time by four weeks from today in order to dispose of Securitization Application Nos.

bipin prithiani 3 p1-wp-12669.25.doc 65 of 2024 and 556 of 2025. It is made clear that no further extension of time shall be granted.

7. Praecipe stands disposed of.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 17/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 21:44:04 :::