Bombay HC Says DRT Nagpur Presiding Officer 'Lacks Basic Legal Knowledge' [Read Order]

Nagpur: The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has recommended that the Union of India immediately remove the Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur, from his post, or in the alternative transfer him forthwith, after finding him guilty of wilful disobedience of the Court's orders and lacking basic knowledge of legal jurisprudence.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Raj D. Wakode was hearing a contempt petition arising out of a writ petition in which the Court had earlier directed the Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide a pending securitization application within six months from November 14, 2025. 

On July 20, 2026, the Court had passed a detailed order recording its prima facie satisfaction that the respondent, Shri Pankaj Kumar, Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, had committed wilful and deliberate disobedience of its order, and had directed notice to be issued to him under Chapter XXXIV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, requiring his personal presence.

On the returnable date, the respondent appeared in person. Considering that he was a senior judicial officer, the Court chose to hear him in chamber rather than in open court. During this interaction, the Bench recorded that it was “shocked to observe that the respondent lacks even basic knowledge of legal jurisprudence,” and found him unaware of the essence of a Presiding Officer's role in a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal. 

The Court further noted that the respondent appeared biased against borrowers, having stated that since they had not paid amounts due to the bank, they did not deserve relief, and that interlocutory applications filed at the last minute could not be decided.

The Court referred to an earlier order dated July 22, 2026 in a connected writ petition, in which it had already recorded that the respondent did not know the basic concepts of legal proceedings, and had directed that correspondence sent by the Deputy Solicitor General of India to the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, regarding the respondent's conduct, be forwarded again for a compliance affidavit.

Examining the specific conduct giving rise to the contempt petition, the Court noted that although it had directed the securitization application to be decided within six months, expiring on May 14, 2026, the respondent, when the matter came up before him on March 24, 2026, adjourned it by seven months to October 21, 2026. When questioned, the respondent claimed that the parties had not appeared before him and that he could not decide the application ex parte. 

On perusing the Roznama, however, the Court found that the order sheet, signed by the respondent himself, recorded that counsel for both sides were present and that the matter had been adjourned for the purpose already fixed. The Court held that 

“the respondent not only lacks judicial knowledge but has also tendered an incorrect and false explanation before this Court, especially when he is standing before this Court in contempt,”

and concluded that the respondent was 

“not suitable for adorning the post of Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal,” adding that it was completely satisfied, after hearing him personally, that he did not deserve to continue in the post “even for a single day.”

The Court observed that it had granted the respondent sufficient opportunity to improve his conduct, and that holding him guilty and punishing him for contempt would not resolve the underlying issue. It accordingly disposed of the contempt petition with a recommendation to the Union of India to remove the respondent from his post with immediate effect, or, if that was not possible, to immediately transfer him. 

The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and counsel for the Union of India, present in Court, were requested to communicate the order for necessary compliance. The Union of India was directed to implement the order and file a compliance report, with the matter listed for further consideration on September 4, 2026.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Yash R. Bhumare, Advocate.

Respondent: Pankaj Kumar, in person.

For the Union of India: Kartik Shukul, Deputy Solicitor General of India; Anup Gilda, Advocate.

Case Title: Smt. Pushpa Pradiprao Deshmukh vs. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur, Contempt Petition No.250 of 2026 in Writ Petition No.6912 of 2025

[Read Order]