The Bombay High Court has clarified that the creation of a Circuit Bench at Kolhapur does not automatically take away the authority of the Principal Seat at Mumbai. The Court said that the Principal Seat will still have jurisdiction in cases where the original and appellate authorities whose orders are challenged are located within its territorial jurisdiction.

This observation was made while hearing a writ petition before Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V.

Challenge to DRAT Order:
The petition challenged an order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai. In that order, the DRAT had sent the matter back to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Pune. The dispute arose from proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

The DRAT had passed the order on 19 September 2024.

Later, by a notification dated 1 August 2025, a Circuit Bench of the Bombay High Court was set up at Kolhapur. This Bench was given jurisdiction over six districts, including Kolhapur.

Relying on this notification, the petitioners argued that under Rule 3A of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, the writ petition should be transferred to the Kolhapur Bench, because the dispute had arisen from Kolhapur.

Court’s Observation on Jurisdiction:

The Bombay High Court held that the fact that an appellate or revisional authority passes an order within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular Bench of the High Court is an important factor in deciding jurisdiction. The Court also said that even if part of the cause of action arose in Kolhapur, the creation of the Kolhapur Circuit Bench does not automatically take away the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat at Mumbai.

The court noted,

“… when an appeal is either allowed or dismissed by the appellate authority, cause of action indeed accrues upon the aggrieved party to approach the High Court, either seeking writ of certiorari or invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”

Court Rejects Transfer Request:
The Court further rejected the petitioners’ argument that the Principal Seat had lost jurisdiction after the creation of the Kolhapur Bench. It observed:

“… the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that with the establishment of the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur and in the light of the introduction of Rule 3A of the said Rules, this Principal Seat has lost jurisdiction to entertain the present petition, deserves to be rejected,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Bombay High Court directed that the writ petition will continue to be heard at the Principal Seat in Mumbai, and the request to transfer the case to the Kolhapur Bench was dismissed.

Case Details: Shekhar Champalal Pagaria & Ors. v. CFM Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 10011 of 2025]