Bombay High Court
NIMISH KISHOR THAKKAR AND ORSversusCHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE CO LTD
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court extended the protection deferring physical possession of the property for a period of two weeks from the date of the order.
Summary
The High Court considered an interim application filed by borrowers seeking to defer physical possession of a mortgaged property after they deposited Rs.1 crore as required by an earlier order. The secured creditor reported that an auction scheduled for 15 September 2026 failed due to lack of bidders and that a securitisation application (No.77 of 2025) was pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The Court held that the protection deferring possession should continue for an additional two weeks from the date of the order. It directed the borrowers to file a fresh interim application before the DRT within that period, with the DRT to decide it independently of the writ petition. An advance copy of any such application must be served on the secured creditor, who may oppose it as per law. The interim application was therefore disposed with these directions.
Issues considered
- What relief, if any, should be granted to defer the physical possession of the subject property?
- Whether the protection granted earlier can be extended for a further period?
- Whether the DRT can entertain a fresh interim application filed by the borrowers without being bound by the High Court's order in the writ petition.
Subjects
- interim relief
- possession
- auction
- Debt Recovery Tribunal
- securitisation
- secured creditor
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
6_IA_7221_26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7221 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10438 OF 2026
Nimish Kishor Thakkar and others … Applicants
In the matter between:
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. … Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents
Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate, a/w. Mr. Mandar Soman, i/b.
Ms. Prachi Kolambekar for applicants.
Mr. Sanjay Sahadeo Anabhawane for petitioner (secured creditor).
Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. GP a/w. Ms. Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP for respondents –
State authorities.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
DATE : 07th OCTOBER, 2026
P.C. :
. As per order dated 11.09.2026, the exercise of taking physical
possession on the said date was deferred, subject to the condition of
depositing the amount of ₹ 1 crore. The learned counsel for the
applicants/borrowers submits that the said amount has been
deposited/paid to the petitioner – secured creditor.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner – secured creditor
informs this Court that an attempt at auction sale of the subject
property fixed for 15.09.2026, did not succeed as no bidders came
forward. It is also an admitted position that Securitisation
Application No.77 of 2025 filed by the applicants/borrowers is
pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal – I, Mumbai (DRT).
Digitally signed
by PRIYA
PRIYA KAMBLI
KAMBLI Date:
2026.10.07
15:00:49 +0530
1/2
6_IA_7221_26.doc
3. In view of the events that have taken place pursuant to the
order dated 11.09.2026, it would be appropriate that the interim
application is disposed of with directions to the applicants as well as
the DRT.
4. Interim Application is disposed of by directing that the
protection of deferring the exercise of taking physical possession of
the subject property, shall continue to operate for a period of two
weeks from today.
5. In the meanwhile, the applicants/borrowers are at liberty to
move a fresh interim application in the aforesaid pending
securitisation application, to claim such interim reliefs as may be
advised.
6. The DRT is directed to take up such application, if filed by the
applicants/borrowers within the aforesaid period of two weeks, for
appropriate orders on ad-interim/interim reliefs. An advance copy of
such application shall be served upon the petitioner – secured
creditor, who shall be at liberty to oppose the prayers made in such
interim application, in accordance with law.
7. The DRT shall proceed to consider such an application, if filed
within the period of two weeks, strictly in accordance with law and
without being influenced by the order passed in the writ petition and
this interim application.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Priya Kambli
2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.