Bombay High Court
CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE CO LTDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR GP AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is disposed as there is no remaining relief, but Respondent No.4 is directed to take necessary steps regarding the FIR as per the earlier order.
Summary
The petitioner, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., a secured creditor, informed the Court that it had taken physical possession of the secured asset following the Court's order dated 18.08.2026. The earlier order also directed Respondent No.4 to explain why an FIR had not been registered on a complaint made by the petitioner despite cognizable offences. The Court examined whether any relief remained after the petitioner’s compliance with the possession direction. Finding that the petitioner's primary relief was satisfied, the Court concluded that the writ petition no longer subsisted. However, the Court reiterated its earlier directive, ordering Respondent No.4 to take necessary steps regarding the FIR matter in accordance with law. Consequently, the petition and any pending applications were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition should be dismissed after the petitioner complied with the Court's direction to take possession of the secured asset
- Whether Respondent No.4 should be directed to take steps concerning the non‑registration of an FIR as earlier ordered
Subjects
- writ petition
- secured creditor
- possession of secured asset
- FIR registration
- compliance with court order
- disposal of petition
Judgment
35_WP_10090_26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10090 OF 2026
Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. … Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents
Mr. Prafull Chipte, i/b. Ms. Medha Rane for petitioner – bank.
Mr. S. P. Kamble, AGP for respondents – State authorities.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
DATE : 03rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
. The learned counsel for the petitioner – bank (secured
creditor) informs this Court that the directions contained in the order
dated 18.08.2026, have been complied with and physical possession
of the secured asset has been handed over to the petitioner. It is
submitted that therefore, nothing survives in this writ petition and
the same may be disposed of.
2. But, a perusal of our order dated 18.08.2026 shows that in
paragraph No.15, we had directed respondent No.4 to report as to
why FIR was not registered on a complaint made by the petitioner,
despite disclosure of cognizable offences.
3. Since the directions contained in the aforesaid order have been
complied with, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition.
Nonetheless, appropriate direction can be issued to respondent No.4,
in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Digitally
signed by
PRIYA PRIYA KAMBLI
Date:
KAMBLI 2026.09.03
14:57:03
+0530
1/2
35_WP_10090_26.doc
4. In the light of the observations made hereinabove, the writ
petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
5. In the light of the direction contained in paragraph No.15 of
the order dated 18.08.2026, respondent No.4 is directed to take
necessary steps in the matter, if not already taken, strictly in
accordance with law.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Priya Kambli
2/2
Checking your session…