The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has issued a notice to the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Nagpur, asking why contempt action should not be taken against him for failing to follow the court’s directions. The order was passed in a writ petition filed by M/s Visual Instinct India Pvt Ltd against Indian Overseas Bank and others. The matter was heard by Justice Anil S Kilor and Justice Raj D Wakode on Tuesday. During the hearing, advocates appearing for both sides informed the court that pleadings in the case were already completed. Despite this, the High Court noted that its earlier order dated September 26, 2025, had not been complied with by the Presiding Officer of the DRT, Nagpur. In its earlier order, the High Court had directed the DRT to decide an application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, within 15 days.

 

However, even after more than four months, no decision has been taken. The court observed that there was clear non-compliance of its directions. The bench also remarked that this was not the first time such conduct had come to its notice. The court stated that in several matters, it had passed urgent orders, but the Presiding Officer of the DRT, Nagpur, had failed to act in time. The judges described this approach as highly prejudicial to the interests of litigants who approach the tribunal seeking urgent relief. Taking serious note of the repeated lapses, the High Court directed that a notice be issued to Pankaj Kumar, Presiding Officer, DRT, Nagpur.

 

The notice seeks his explanation as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for ignoring the court’s orders. The notice has been made returnable on March 4, 2026. Meanwhile, the High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed in the interim application before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). The court also extended the interim stay granted earlier in favour of the petitioner for a period of three weeks. This relief has been given to allow the petitioner to approach the appellate tribunal. The bench made it clear that after the expiry of three weeks, the stay will automatically stand vacated. Adv Raju Kadu represented the petitioners while Adv K K Sachdev and M A Vishnu for respondents.