Bombay High Court

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LTD THR. ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER RAVI ANUSEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. G. P. AND ORS

Decided: 22 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The writ petition is disposed of, without prejudice to the pending DRT securitisation application, which shall proceed on its own merits.

Summary

The Bombay High Court considered a writ petition filed by Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., a secured creditor, seeking enforcement of its earlier order directing physical possession of a secured asset. The court noted that the directions dated 12 August 2026 had been complied with, with possession handed over to the auction purchaser, and that the police had recorded an FIR for a subsequent trespass. The respondents (borrowers) argued that the petition should not prejudice a pending Securitisation Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Pune. The court held that the writ petition could be disposed of without affecting the DRT proceedings, as no interim order was operating in the DRT case. Consequently, the petition and any pending applications were disposed, and the DRT was directed to hear the securitisation matter on its merits.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can issue and enforce directions for possession of a secured asset after earlier orders.
Whether the writ petition's disposal would prejudice the pending Securitisation Application before the DRT.
Whether the absence of an interim order in the DRT proceeding bars the High Court from granting relief in the writ petition.

Subjects

secured creditor
secured asset
physical possession
trespass
writ petition
Debts Recovery Tribunal
securitisation
compliance report
police FIR

Judgment

bipin prithiani
1
907-wp-15683.25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 15683 OF 2025

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance
Company Ltd. … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
******
Mr. Alok D. Mishra for Petitioner.
BIPIN
Digitally signed by
Mrs. M. S. bane, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Samir Vaidya a/w Mr. Siddharth Nair for Respondent Nos.3
BIPIN DHARMENDER
DHARMENDER PRITHIANI
PRITHIANI Date: 2026.09.23
10:19:26 +0530

and 4.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026

P.C. :

. In this petition, on 12th August 2026, this Court had passed
an order, directing that physical possession of the secured asset
shall be taken on 18th August 2026 and in that light, appropriate
directions were issued to the respondent-State Authorities in the
said order. This Court recorded the blatant manner in which the
secured asset was trespassed, despite physical possession of the
secured asset having been taken in pursuance of earlier order
dated 27th February 2026 passed by this Court. Upon finding that
the subject property i.e. the secured asset was being repeatedly
trespassed, specific directions were issued and it was also directed
that the Commissioner of Police, Pune shall provide details as to in
bipin prithiani
2
907-wp-15683.25.doc

how many such cases of trespass in District Pune FIRs had been
registered. This was in the backdrop of a number of such cases
being brought to the notice of this Court in writ jurisdiction by
secured creditors, with regard to the impunity with which the
secured assets were being trespassed after physical possession had
been duly handed over to the secured creditor/ auction purchaser.

2. Today, when the petition is taken up for consideration, the
learned AGP informs this Court that the directions issued as per
the order dated 12th August 2026 have been complied with. This is
confirmed by the learned counsel for the petitioner (secured
creditor). He further submits that the physical possession of the
secured asset has now been handed over to the auction purchaser.

3. The learned AGP has tendered an additional affidavit of the
Senior Police Inspector of Kothrud Police Station, placing on
record the details as to the manner in which physical possession of
the secured asset was again taken and that FIR dated 18 th August
2026 was registered. A compliance report on behalf of
Commissioner of Police, giving details about the number of FIRs
registered in such cases in District Pune, is also tendered. The
additional affidavit and the compliance report are taken on record.

4. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 (borrowers) submits that the petitioner
(secured creditor) did not apprise this Court about the borrowers
having approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Pune (DRT), as
per Securitisation Application No.600 of 2023. It is submitted that
bipin prithiani
3
907-wp-15683.25.doc

the order passed in this writ petition may not prejudice the
hearing and disposal of the pending Securitisation Application.
Since, it is an admitted position that no interim order is operating
in the Securitisation Application, mere pendency of the same
cannot be a ground for the borrowers to claim that this Court
could not have issued appropriate directions.

5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

6. Needless to say, the DRT shall proceed to hear and decide
the pending Securitisation Application, on its own merits.

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.