DINESHKUMAR RAJITRAM YADAV AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR GP AND ORS

                                                                                  25_WP_13145_26.doc



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 13145 OF 2026

                        Dineshkumar Rajitram Yadav and another                …   Petitioners
                                     vs.
                        The State of Maharashtra and others                   …   Respondents

                        Mr. Ashok Saraogi a/w. Mr. Anand Mishra, Mr. Ankit Upadhyay and Mr.
                        Sushil Upadhyay for petitioners.
                        Mr. Anirudhha Garge, ‘B’ panel advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 4 –
                        State authorities.
                        Mr. Nikhil Salvi a/w. Mr. Pradeep Bhor and Ms. Riya Pawar for respondent
                        No.2 – secured creditor.

                                                        CORAM :      MANISH PITALE &
                                                                     SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
                                                        DATE     :   05th OCTOBER, 2026


                        P.C. :


                        .        By this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated
                        30.09.2026 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal – I, Mumbai
                        (DRT), whereby a praecipe moved on behalf of petitioners was
                        dismissed.


                        2.       It is an admitted position that on 01.10.2026, physical
                        possession of the secured asset has already been taken by respondent
                        No.2 – secured creditor. Securitisation Application No.182 of 2026
                        filed by the petitioners is pending before the DRT.


                        3.       Today during the course of arguments, the learned counsel
                        appearing for the petitioners submits that for a minor default,
                        physical possession of the subject property has been taken, due to the
                        fact that the default led to the entire loan amount along with interest
         Digitally
         signed by
PRIYA    PRIYA KAMBLI
         Date:
KAMBLI   2026.10.05
         17:43:32
         +0530
                                                                                                 1/3
                                                        25_WP_13145_26.doc



becoming due and payable. It is submitted that the petitioners are
ready to make good the default in EMIs along with interest, as may
be chargeable, in accordance with law and they also undertake to
continue to pay the installments regularly. On this basis, it is
submitted that the petitioners can be put back in possession of the
property.


4.    We are of the opinion that this writ petition was essentially
filed due to grave urgency, in the backdrop of the proposed exercise
of taking physical possession on 01.10.2026. As a matter of fact,
interim application in the pending securitisation application was also
filed for seeking stay of dispossession.


5.    Since respondent No.2 – secured creditor has already taken
possession of the secured asset, the urgency for pressing the present
petition no longer exists. Submissions made before this Court, as
noted hereinabove, can certainly be advanced before the DRT in the
pending securitisation application by moving an appropriate interim
application, if necessary. We are of the opinion that the DRT, as the
original authority under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, is
better equipped to deal with the submissions and counter-
submissions made by the contesting parties in that context.


6.    In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by
granting liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate interim
application in the pending securitisation application, making the
offer as stated before this Court, so that a workable solution can be
found out and the petitioners can also claim appropriate relief with
regard to physical possession of the secured asset.


                                                                       2/3
                                                                          25_WP_13145_26.doc




               7.      If the petitioners file such an interim application before the
               DRT in the pending Securitisation Application No.182 of 2026 within
               two days from today, the same shall be taken up urgently for
               consideration. The petitioners shall serve advance copy of the
               proposed interim application on the contesting respondent No.2 –
               secured creditor.


               8.      The DRT is directed to take up such application for
               consideration and appropriate orders at the earliest and in any case
               on or before 12.10.2026.


               9.      The DRT shall taken into account the rival submissions to pass
               the order in the interim application as well as securitisation
               application. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of
               the matter. All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept
               open.


               10.     Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.




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




Priya Kambli




                                                                                         3/3