# In the matter of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra thr. Government Pleader & Ors.

> HC judgment dated 2025-12-10. Citation: TCN-2025-HC-00083. Several writ petitions were filed challenging the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 10 Dec 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-HC-00083
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/bombay-high-court-mumbai/kotak-mahindra-bank-ltd-ors-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-thr-government-pleader-o-92a26d57

## Summary

### Background

Several writ petitions were filed challenging the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) to entertain insolvency applications, particularly in light of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the Supreme Court's decision in Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of India.

## Facts

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Anbit Finvest Pvt Ltd, Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd, and Vinay Jain filed writ petitions challenging the DRT's jurisdiction.

The petitioners argued that the insolvency proceedings initiated before the DRT should be transferred to the NCLT in light of the IBC and the Lalit Kumar Jain case.

The DRT had issued an order declaring an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC.

The petitioners contended that the respondents initiated collusive proceedings to stall proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.

An application under Section 9 of IBC was already filed by the operational creditor against the principal borrower, which was admitted on 16 February 2024.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has jurisdiction to entertain insolvency applications, …

**Ratio:** Section 60 of the IBC, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Lalit Kumar Jain,

…

**Reasoning:** The Supreme Court in Lalit Kumar Jain clarified that the intent of the IBC is to treat

…

**Interpretation:** Section 60(2) of the IBC provides that any application relating to insolvency

…

**Application:** In this case, since an application under Section 9 of IBC was already filed by

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** M.S. S…; Advait M.…
- **Appellants:** Kotak Mahindra…; Anbit Finvest Pvt…; +2 more
- **Respondents:** PTRAANS Logistics…; The State of…; +1 more
- **Other parties:** Pravin…; Kalpana Pravin…
- **Advocates:** Shanay…; Hamza La…; +8 more

## Timeline

- **2019-04-25 — SARFAESI…**: The Petitioner initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by issuing notice under…
- **2021-04-01 — Order for Physical…**: An order was issued allowing the application for taking physical possession of the…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 9 — Application for initiation of corporate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-9)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/bombay-high-court-mumbai/kotak-mahindra-bank-ltd-ors-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-thr-government-pleader-o-92a26d57