SURA KRISHNAKUMARI REDDYversusDEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CO LTD

                                                                                           10_WP9388_26.doc



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                              WRIT PETITION NO.9388 OF 2026

                          Sura Krishnakumari Reddy                                   …    Petitioner
                          Vs.
                          Dewan Housing Finance Co. Ltd.                             …    Respondent

                          Ms. Prachi Shukla i/b. V. K. Dubey Associates for Petitioner.
                          Mr. Alok D. Mishra for Respondent.


                                                       CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
                                                               SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
                                                       DATE        : AUGUST 18, 2026
                          P.C. :

                          .        On 23.07.2026, this Court had shown indulgence and issued
                          notice in the present writ petition in the light of peculiar circumstances
                          arising in the present case.

                          2.       It was recorded that the petitioner is the widow of the principal
                          borrower and that she is a co-borrower. It was recorded that the deceased
                          husband of the petitioner had essentially taken care of repayment of the
                          loan advanced by the respondent (secured creditor). It was also recorded
                          that after the demise of her husband, the petitioner had made certain
                          payments, but eventually, the loan was classified as a ‘Non-Performing
                          Asset’ and the respondent took further steps under the provisions of the
                          Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
MINAL Digitally
       by MINAL
SANDIP SANDIP
                signed

                PARAB
       Date: 2026.08.18
PARAB 16:30:54 +0530
                          of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act).

                          3.       It was noted that although alternative efficacious statutory remedy
                          of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the provisions
                          of the Securitisation Act was available to the petitioner, in the light of a
                          statement made on her behalf that she would make payment of amount


                                                                                                       1/3
                                                              10_WP9388_26.doc



of Rs.10 lakhs within two weeks to the respondent, the writ petition
could be entertained. Accordingly, notice was issued and the action
proposed to be taken by the respondent of taking physical possession of
the subject property was deferred, subject to payment of Rs.10 lakhs by
the petitioner to the respondent on or before 14.08.2026. We had also
recorded that the petitioner was expected to give a schedule regarding
repayment of the balance outstanding amount on the returnable date i.e.
today.

4.       Today when the petition is called out for hearing, it is conceded
that the petitioner could not make payment of Rs.10 lakhs within the
time period specified by this Court in the order dated 23.07.2026. In that
light, we find that since the action of taking physical possession of the
subject property stood deferred as per the said order and the respondent,
as the secured creditor, would be required to give notice of at least 15
days for taking any action with regard to physical possession of the
subject property, it would be appropriate that the petitioner takes
recourse to the aforesaid statutory remedy under the provisions of the
Securitisation Act, and if in the meantime, she is able to raise finances
and satisfy the loan or she is able to convince the respondent for a one-
time settlement, appropriate steps could be taken in that regard.

5.       We are no longer convinced that the writ petition needs to be
further entertained by this Court as the alternative efficacious statutory
remedy is indeed available to the petitioner to approach the DRT under
the provisions of the Securitisation Act. As on today, there does not
appear to be any imminent threat of physical dispossession of the
petitioner. The Supreme Court in the cases of United Bank of India Vs.
Satyawati Tandon and others, (2010) 8 SCC 110 and Celir LLP Vs.
Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and others, (2024) 2 SCC 1
has clarified that in the face of such statutory remedy available under the


                                                                          2/3
                                                                 10_WP9388_26.doc



provisions of the Securitisation Act, the Writ Court ought not to entertain
such writ petitions.

6.      In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However,
liberty is reserved for the petitioner to approach the DRT under the
provisions of the Securitisation Act, in accordance with law. The
respondent would follow the process of law and give notice of at least 15
days to the petitioner in the event the respondent proceeds to take
physical possession of the subject property.

7.      It is made clear that the liberty being reserved for the petitioner to
approach the DRT under the provisions of the Securitisation Act would
be strictly in accordance with law. This Court is not expressing any
opinion on any aspect of the matter. All rights and contentions of the
parties are kept open.

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




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




Minal Parab




                                                                             3/3