Authority: Supreme Court of India
Order Date: 18-08-2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Petitioner – Rajiv Kishor Mehta; Respondents – HDFC Bank Ltd. & Others.
- Origin: The petition arises from an impugned final judgment and order dated 12-08-2026 in RP No. 709/2004 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal No.2, Mumbai.
- Proceedings: Petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition (C) seeking relief against the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. A writ petition was also filed in the High Court, which was declined at the mentioning stage on the ground that an alternative remedy existed.
- Counsel: Senior Counsel for the petitioner included Mr. Kapil Sibal and others; counsel for the respondents included Mr. Zoeb Cutlerywala and others.
Observations & Reasoning
- The Court noted that the High Court should have entertained the writ petition and decided on the merits, including the question of an alternative remedy, rather than declining it at the mentioning stage.
- It emphasized that the writ petition could not be dismissed at the mentioning stage and that the High Court must take up the matter.
- All substantive issues, including maintainability of the writ petition and the availability of an alternative remedy, were left open for determination by the High Court.
- The Court directed that the status quo existing as on the hearing date (18-08-2026) be maintained by the parties pending the High Court's decision.
Final Outcome
- The Special Leave Petition is disposed of with directions to the High Court to take up the writ petition and render a decision within one week of receipt of this order.
- Any pending applications in the present proceedings are also disposed of.
- The status quo remains in effect until the High Court issues its order.
Topics: Legal Proceedings, Banking