Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Bombay High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of writ petition originally filed and registered at the Principal Seat of Bombay High Court to the newly established Circuit Bench at Kolhapur in light of Rule 3A of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 ( ‘Rules’), the Division Bench of Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ., rejected the petition to hold that the writ petition will continue at the Principal Seat after observing that,
“Even if a choice of forum becomes subsequently available to a litigant due to the establishment of a Circuit Bench, it cannot be said that the Principal Seat of the High Court loses jurisdiction to further hear and entertain a writ petition that was originally and validly filed before it.”
Background
In a dispute pertaining to credit facilities and recovery actions under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the petitioners, a proprietary firm and its mortgagors, had originally filed and registered the present writ petition at the Principal Seat of Bombay High Court in Mumbai in early 2025. At the time of institution, the Principal Seat was the appropriate and only available forum for the petitioners.
However, during the pendency of the petition, a Government Notification dated 1-8-2025 established a Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, exercising jurisdiction over six districts, including Kolhapur. The petitioners moved an application seeking the transfer of the case to the Kolhapur Bench, contending that under Rule 3-A of the Rules, the Principal Seat had been divested of its jurisdiction as the matter belonged to the Kolhapur district.
Analysis and decision
The Court noted emphasis on Rule 3A of the Rules as to be the bedrock of submissions on part of the petitioners. The Court observed that the petitioners invoked writ of certiorari challenging the order of DRAT, Mumbai and re-affirmed that both the Original and the Appellate Authority are within jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of the High Court. The Court opined that location of the appellate authority within a particular Bench’s territorial jurisdiction is a relevant factor, as part of the cause of action clearly arises where such an authority is situated.
The Court noted that when an appeal is either allowed or dismissed by the appellate authority, cause of action arises for the aggrieved party to approach the High Court by way of a writ of certiorari or under Article 227 of the Constitution. By referring New India Assurance Company Limited v. UOI, 2009 SCC OnLine Del.1764, the Court further noted that as per settled law, the High Court’s jurisdiction as a Constitutional Court, while exercising a writ of certiorari and its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 has substantially overlapped, and the distinction between the two has become blurred.
On applying the settled legal position to the facts, the Court held that the establishment of the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur does not mean that the Principal Seat at Mumbai has lost or been divested of jurisdiction. The Court noted that reliance placed on Shri Shivneri Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Rupee Co-operative Bank Ltd., W.P. No. 2623 of 2024, and Rule 3A was misplaced, as that judgment was based on its own facts where the original authority was situated in Kolhapur. The Court further found that certain observations in that judgment regarding Supreme Court precedents were not correct, and in any case, the present matter was factually distinguishable.
The Court further observed that reliance on Lawyers’ Forum for General Utility & Litigating Public v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No.8182 of 2012, and Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India, (2018) 8 SCC 396, regarding the Chief Justice’s power as ‘Master of the Roster’ was misplaced, as the administrative power to transfer cases does not support the legal contention that the Principal Seat loses jurisdiction upon the establishment of a Circuit Bench. Furthermore, the Court held that the aspect of forum convenience could not assist the petitioners, particularly since both the Original Authority at Pune and the Appellate Authority at Mumbai fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat. Consequently, the Court rejected the argument that the introduction of Rule 3A mandates a compulsory transfer, concluding that the writ petition will continue to be heard at the Principal Seat at Mumbai.
[Shekhar Champalal Pagaria v. CFM Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1837, decided on 06-03-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Ayodhya Patki, Vallabh Tokekar and Akash Kotecha
For the respondent: Nikhil Rajani, Ajay Deshmane i/b. V. Deshpande & Co, Darshit Jain, Parth Mehta, Anurag Kalavatiya and Udit Raghuwanshi i/b. Mr. Bhavesh Joshi