Principal Seat retains jurisdiction over writ challenging appellate tribunal order within its territory despite origin in Circuit Bench district; no ouster or mandatory transfer under Rule 3A as appellate situs forms part of cause of action via merger.

ORDER :

Manish Pitale, J.

The establishment of the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur has led to a specific question being raised on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that the present petition, originally filed and registered at the Principal Seat of this High Court, upon establishment of the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur ought to be transferred to the Circuit Bench. It is claimed that upon establishment of the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur and in the light of Rule 3A of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules (for short the 'said Rules'), the Principal Seat of this Court no longer has jurisdiction to consider and deal with this petition. The said question does not concern the merits of the present petition. But, a brief reference to the chronology of events leading upto filing of this petition becomes necessary to understand the context in which the rival submissions have been made.

2. The petitioner No.1 is a proprietary firm, which took certain credit facilities from Janata Sahakari Bank Limited, for which purpose petitioner Nos.2 to 4 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. It is the case of the petitioners that the steps taken in that regard, including approaching the concerned Magistrate, were inappropriate and ultimately, the petitioners were constrained to file securitisation application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Pune, which has jurisdiction over certain Districts in Maharashtra including the District Kolhapur. In the meanwhile, the bank assigned the loan to the respondent No.1, and hence, the said respondent was a party before the DRT. In the proceedings before the DRT, interlocutory applications were filed. On 22.02.2023, the DRT decided all the interlocutory applications and set aside a sale certificate issued in favour of respondent No.5 and directed respondent No.1 to retain custody of movable assets and to commence the process of sale afresh. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.1 filed appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) at Mumbai.

3. By the impugned order dated 19.09.2024, the DRAT decided the appeals by a common order and remanded the matters back to the DRT for decision afresh, on the basis that the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the DRT was a non-speaking order.

4. The petitioners filed present writ petition aggrieved by the said order of the DRT. On 31.07.2025, while issuing notice in the present writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court directed that, in the meantime, the DRT shall not re-initiate the sale proceedings de novo till the next date of listing. The interim order has continued to operate during the pendency of the present petition.

5. By a Notification dated 01.08.2025, the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur was established and it was inaugurated on 16.08.2025. The Circuit Bench at Kolhapur as per the amended rules exercises jurisdiction over six districts of Maharashtra, including district Kolhapur. In this backdrop, when the writ petition was taken up for consideration on 29.01.2026, a specific submission was made on behalf of the petitioners