The Bombay High Court has held that the establishment of the Kolhapur Circuit Bench does not automatically divest the Principal Seat at Mumbai of jurisdiction to hear matters where the appellate authority whose order is challenged is located within its territorial jurisdiction.
The case arose in a writ petition filed by M/s. Shekhar Champalal Pagaria, challenging an order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai, which had remanded proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFEASI) to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Pune. During the hearing, the petitioners contended that after the establishment of the Kolhapur Circuit Bench in August 2025 and the introduction of Rule 3A of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, the writ petition ought to be transferred to the Kolhapur Circuit Bench since the dispute originated from Kolhapur district.
Rejecting the contention, the Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat held that the Principal Seat at Mumbai continues to have jurisdiction because both the original authority (DRT Pune) and the appellate authority (DRAT Mumbai) fall within its territorial jurisdiction. The Court emphasised that an appellate order forms a significant part of the cause of action for invoking writ jurisdiction.
The Bench clarified that the creation of the Kolhapur Circuit Bench and the amendment to the Appellate Side Rules do not automatically oust the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat in pending matters. The Court observed that the petitioners’ argument that the Mumbai seat had lost jurisdiction was untenable:
“The contention… that with the establishment of the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur this Principal Seat has lost jurisdiction to entertain the present petition deserves to be rejected.”
Accordingly, the Court refused to transfer the matter to the Kolhapur Circuit Bench and directed that the writ petition would continue to be heard at the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court, with the interim protection earlier granted remaining in force until the next hearing.
Appearances
Ms. Ayodhya Patki a/w. Mr. Vallabh Tokekar and Mr. Akash Kotecha for Petitioners. Mr. Nikhil Rajani a/w. Mr. Ajay Deshmane i/b. V. Deshpande & Co. for Respondent No.1. Mr. Darshit Jain a/w. Mr. Parth Mehta, Mr. Anurag Kalavatiya and Mr. Udit Raghuwanshi i/b. Mr. Bhavesh Joshi for Respondent No.5.
