Bombay High Court
MANISH R YADAV AND ANRversusJM FINANCIAL ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Since the petitioners deposited the required amount and the loan was regularised, there was no longer any ground for relief and the writ petition was disposed.
Summary
The petitioners, borrowers, sought interim protection against a notice issued by the Tehsildar to take physical possession of their secured asset, filed by the secured creditor J.M. Financial Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd. The Bombay High Court ordered a stay of possession for ten days, conditioned upon the petitioners depositing Rs.4,00,000 and pending consideration of their applications before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The petitioners complied, depositing the required amount along with an additional Rs.45,000, leading to the regularisation of the loan account. Consequently, the securitisation application before the DRT was disposed, and the secured creditor was permitted to withdraw the deposited sum. The Court observed that with the loan regularised, no relief remained for the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can grant a limited interim stay of possession of a secured asset pending DRT proceedings.
- Whether the petitioners' undertaking to deposit a specified amount conditions the grant of interim protection.
- Whether the Court can direct the DRT to decide on ad‑interim relief without being bound by the Court's order.
Subjects
- writ petition
- interim relief
- stay of possession
- Debt Recovery Tribunal
- secured creditor
- loan regularisation
Judgment
bipin prithiani
1
911-wp-11946.26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11946 OF 2026
Manish R. Yadav & Anr. … Petitioners
Versus
J.M. Financial Assets Reconstruction
Company Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents
******
Mr. Aakash Yadav a/w Habibur Rehman Ansari for Petitioners.
Mr. Navin Arora for Respondent No.1.
Digitally signed by
BIPIN BIPIN DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER PRITHIANI
PRITHIANI Date: 2026.09.30
17:50:04 +0530
Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent No.2-State.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
. In this petition, on 7th September 2026, this Court had
passed the following order :
“. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners (borrowers).
2. This petition is filed and urgently taken up on the
production board in the backdrop of a notice dated 10 th
August 2026 issued by the respondent No.2-Tehsildar,
Palghar, for taking physical possession of the subject property
(secured asset) today i.e. 7th September 2026.
3. It is brought to our notice that the petitioners became
aware of the same on 21st August 2026 and after obtaining
necessary papers, filed Securitisation Application (Diary) No.
1613 of 2026 and Interim Application (Diary) No. 3326 of
2026 on 5th September 2026. We are informed that the
aforesaid applications were to be taken up before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai (DRT-III), but since Debts
bipin prithiani
2
911-wp-11946.26.doc
Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (DRT-II) is in-charge of DRT-
III, the same was mentioned before the DRT-II for urgent
listing.
4. We are informed that DRT-II has granted listing of the
aforesaid applications on 9th September 2026. It is submitted
that by the time the applications are taken up for
consideration by the DRT-II, the aforesaid notice would stand
executed and it would be detrimental to the petitioners.
5. On instructions, the learned counsel for the petitioners
makes a statement that the petitioners shall be depositing an
amount of Rs.4 lakhs before DRT-III within two days i.e. on
or before 9th September 2026. The statement is recorded as an
undertaking to this Court.
6. Today, the respondent No.1-secured creditor is not
before this Court, while respondent No.2 is represented by
the learned AGP.
7. Considering the urgency of the matter and the aforesaid
statement made on behalf of the petitioners, we are inclined
to grant limited interim protection to the petitioners, in the
context of the said notice issued by the respondent No.2-
Tehsildar.
8. Issue notice, returnable on 30th September 2026, in the
supplementary list. Learned AGP waives notice on behalf of
respondent No.2.
9. In the meanwhile, on the said undertaking given by the
petitioners, the action of taking physical possession of the
secured asset is kept in abeyance for a period of 10 days i.e.
till 17th September 2026.
10. The learned AGP shall inform the respondent No.2-
Tehsildar about the order passed today.
11. The DRT-II, as in-charge of DRT-III, shall take up the
applications of the petitioners for consideration on 9 th
September 2026. It shall be verified as to whether the
petitioners have indeed deposited the aforesaid amount of
Rs.4 lakhs and then take up the interim application of the
petitioners for consideration. It is made clear that if the
petitioners fail to deposit the said amount on or before 9 th
bipin prithiani
3
911-wp-11946.26.doc
September 2026, as indicated above, the limited interim
protection granted by this Court will cease to operate,
without reference to Court.
12. The prayer for ad-interim/interim relief shall be decided
by the DRT-II, as in-charge of DRT-III, in the said
applications, on or before 16th September 2026, after hearing
the respondent No.1-secured creditor, in accordance with law.
13. The DRT-II while hearing the parties on the prayer for
ad-interim/interim relief shall proceed in the matter, without
being influenced by the order passed by this Court today.
14. List for further consideration on 30th September 2026,
in the supplementary list.”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners informs this Court
that subsequently on 11th September 2026, the Securitisation
Application filed by the petitioners itself was disposed of in the
backdrop of the fact that in addition to depositing the amount of
Rs.4,00,000/-, as directed by this Court, an additional amount of
Rs.45,000/- was deposited before the Debts Recovery Tribunal
(DRT), with liberty to the respondent-secured creditor to
withdraw the entire amount of Rs.4,45,000/-. The securitisation
application stood disposed of in the light of the fact that the loan
account stood regularized. The learned counsel appearing for
respondent-secured creditor confirms the said position on facts.
3. In view of the above, nothing survives in the writ petition
and accordingly, it is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.