Bombay High Court
NOORSHAN BEGUM WD/O MOHD ISMAIL MOHD YASEENversusTAHSILDAR AND TALUKA MAGISTRATE, MALEGAON AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that there is no ground to stay the execution of the order under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act and dismissed the interim application.
Summary
The High Court, hearing an interim application filed by Noorshan Begum and others, considered their request to defer a previously issued order directing physical possession of a secured asset belonging to Janata Co-operative Bank. The original order, dated 22 September 2026, required the State authorities to assist in executing a magistrate’s order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The applicants argued they could make a reasonable settlement offer and sought a stay of execution, but the Court noted that the bank had disclosed all material facts and that the precedent in L&T Finance Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra mandates execution within four weeks. The Court found no merit in the applicants’ contentions, emphasizing that the pending Debt Recovery Tribunal applications do not impede execution. Consequently, the interim application was dismissed and the original directions were reiterated, with the DRT instructed to consider the securitisation applications on their merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the interim application seeking deferment of the execution of a magistrate’s order under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act should be entertained.
- Whether the applicants’ offer of settlement can justify a stay of the physical possession order.
- Whether the precedent in L&T Finance Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra requiring execution within four weeks applies to the present case.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Securitisation Act
- Section 14
- interim relief
- physical possession
- secured creditor
- Debt Recovery Tribunal
- stay of execution
- settlement offer
Judgment
922_IA_7650_26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7650 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 11298 OF 2026
Noorshan Begum wd/o. Mohd Ismail
Mohd. Yaseen & others … Applicants
In the matter between:
Janata Co-operative Bank Limited … Petitioner
vs.
Tahsildar & Taluka Maigstrate, Malegaon & others … Respondents
Mr. Vishwajit Kapse a/w. Mr. Manish Rathod and Mr. Sudhir D. Chaudhary
for applicants.
Mr. Siddharth Samantaray a/w. Mr. Niket Harit, i/b. Manoj Harit & Co. for
petitioner – bank.
Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. GP a/w. Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for respondents –
State authorities.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
. On 22.09.2026, this Court passed an order, directing physical
possession of the secured asset to be taken on 30.09.2026 i.e.
tomorrow. Appropriate directions have been issued to the concerned
police station to provide assistance, so that the directions issued by
this Court are appropriately implemented.
2. Yesterday, this interim application was mentioned on behalf of
the applicants, claiming that they would be able to make out a case
Digitally signed
by PRIYA
PRIYA KAMBLI
KAMBLI Date:
2026.09.29
18:54:50 +0530 1/3
922_IA_7650_26.doc
and convince this Court for deferring the directions contained in the
aforesaid order. In that light, we directed the application to be taken
up today in the supplementary list.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the
learned counsel for the original petitioner – bank (secured creditor).
We find that the petitioner – bank had disclosed all the relevant facts
in the writ petition and after considering the same, this Court passed
the aforesaid order for directing the respondent – State authorities to
ensure that the order passed by the competent Magistrate under
Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation
Act), is duly executed.
4. It is to be noted that in terms of the directions contained in the
judgement and order of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
L & T Finance Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2023 , SCC
OnLine Bom 931, such orders passed by competent Magistrates
under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act, are required to be
executed not later than four weeks from the date of passing such
orders. As a matter of fact, this Court referred to the said precedent
in the aforesaid order, while issuing directions in the present petition.
5. It is an admitted position that the applicants have not been
able to obtain any interim order from the competent tribunal i.e.
Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), under the provisions of the
Securitisation Act in Securitisation applications filed and kept
pending. There is no impediment for execution of the said order of
the Magistrate, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
2/3
922_IA_7650_26.doc
6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants submits
that the applicants are ready to make a reasonable offer for one time
settlement to the petitioner – bank. Nothing prevented the applicants
to do so in the pending securitisation applications. It is to be noted
that such application is filed and moved at the eleventh hour, only to
see that the specific directions issued by this Court are thwarted. We
find no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the
applicants.
7. It is brought to our notice that according to the petitioner –
bank, the outstanding dues are in the range of about ₹ 6 crores.
There is no basis for the applicants to claim that the aforesaid order
passed by this Court should be kept in abeyance. We are of the
opinion that if the applicants are really sincere about making a
reasonable offer to the petitioner – bank for realisation of their dues,
they can do so before the bank proceeds to take further steps under
the provisions of the Securitisation Act, including putting the subject
property (secured asset) to auction.
8. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the present
application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
9. The directions contained in the order dated 22.09.2026 are
reiterated and the respondents – State authorities are directed to
abide by the same.
10. Needless to say, the DRT shall proceed to consider the pending
securitisation applications on their own merits.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Priya Kambli
3/3
Checking your session…