MANOJ BHIMRAO DALVIversusASPIRE HOUSING FINANCE LTD KNOWN AS MOTILAL OSWAL HOME FINANCE LTD AND ORS

                                                                                                  10_RPWST23647_26.doc



                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                              INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6626 OF 2026
                                                              IN
                                              REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.23647 OF 2026
                                                              IN
                                                 WRIT PETITION NO.6726 OF 2026

                               Manoj Bhimrao Dalvi                       … Applicant / Petitioner
                               Vs.
                               Aspire Housing Finance Limited and others … Respondents

                               Dr. U. P. Warunjikar i/b. Mr. Jenish D. Jain for Applicant / Petitioner.

                                                             CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
                                                                     SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
                                                             DATE        : AUGUST 28, 2026
                               P.C. :

                                        By Interim Application No.6626 of 2026, the applicant -
                               petitioner is seeking condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the review
                               petition.

                               2.       Having perused the application, it is found that sufficient reasons
                               are stated therein justifying the prayer for condonation of delay in filing
                               the review petition.

                               3.       Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay is condoned.

                               4.       Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner.

                               5.       The petitioner is seeking review of order dated 30.06.2026 passed
                               by this Court in Writ Petition No.676 of 2026. It is brought to our notice
                               that the aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner by filing
                               Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.23941 of 2026. The said special leave
                               petition was dismissed, but, the Supreme Court recorded a statement
MINAL    Digitally signed by
         MINAL SANDIP
SANDIP
PARAB
         PARAB
         Date: 2026.08.28
         17:31:34 +0530        made on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission to withdraw the

                                                                                                                  1/2
                                                            10_RPWST23647_26.doc



petition to approach this Court by filing a review. The liberty to file
review was reserved.

6.       The learned counsel for the review petitioner invites our attention
to paragraph 7 of the order dated 30.06.2026. It is submitted that the
observations made therein may not be appropriate to the extent that the
facts in the case of Himanshu Singh and others Vs. Union of India, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 553, are distinguishable from the facts of the present
case. An attempt was made to contend that since fraud has been alleged,
jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) may not be available and
that therefore, the writ petition ought to have been entertained.

4.       We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner
on the said count. We do not find any reason to accept the contention
that writ petition ought to have been entertained because question of
fraud was being raised by the petitioner. We are of the opinion that our
order dated 30.06.2026 follows the settled position of law laid down by
the Supreme Court that aggrieved persons like the petitioner have the
statutory remedy of approaching the DRT under the provisions of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
of Security Interest Act, 2002. The writ petitions filed in such situations
ought not to be entertained as reiterated by the Supreme Court in a
number of judgements, including United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati
Tandon and others, (2010) 8 SCC 110 and Celir LLP Vs. Bafna Motors
(Mumbai) Private Limited and others, (2024) 2 SCC 1. It is for the DRT
to consider the grievance raised by the petitioner and come to a
conclusion as to whether relief can be granted and if so, in what manner.

5.       No case of any error apparent on the face of the record is made
out by the petitioner and accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.



(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)                        (MANISH PITALE, J.)

Minal Parab                                                                 2/2