Notification Of Kolhapur Circuit Bench Doesn't Automatically Divest Principal Seat Of Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the establishment of the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur does not automatically divest the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court of jurisdiction in matters where the original and appellate authorities whose orders are challenged are located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat. The Court observed that the order passed by an appellate authority constitutes a substantial part of the cause of action, and therefore, the High Court, within whose territorial jurisdiction such authority is situated, continues to have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition.A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. was hearing a writ petition filed challenging an order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai, which had remanded proceedings back to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Pune, in a dispute arising out of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. DRAT had passed the order on 19 September 2024. Subsequently, by notification dated 1 August 2025, a Circuit Bench of the Bombay High Court was established at Kolhapur with jurisdiction over six districts, including Kolhapur. On that basis, the petitioners argued that in view of Rule 3A of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, the writ petition ought to be transferred to the Kolhapur Circuit Bench because the dispute arose from Kolhapur district, where the loan was sanctioned and where the secured assets were located.The Court noted that the fact that an order is passed by the appellate or revisional authority within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular Bench of the High Court is a relevant factor, and that part of the cause of action clearly arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bench wherein the appellate or revisional authority is located. The Court held that both the DRT at Pune and the DRAT at Mumbai were situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court. Therefore, even if part of the cause of action arose in Kolhapur, it could not be said that the establishment of the Kolhapur Circuit Bench automatically ousted the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat. It observed:“… 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.”The Court further remarked that the concept of forum convenience could not be invoked by the petitioners, particularly when they had themselves filed the appeal before the DRAT at Mumbai and had originally instituted the writ petition before the Principal Seat.“… 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 request to transfer the writ petition to the Kolhapur Circuit Bench was rejected, and the Court directed that the petition would continue to be heard at the Principal Seat in Mumbai.Case Title: Shekhar Champalal Pagaria & Ors. v. CFM Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 10011 of 2025]Click Here To Read/Download Order

Notification Of Kolhapur Circuit Bench Doesn't Automatically Divest Principal Seat Of Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court

Saksham Vaishya

Tags