Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

LIMRA GARMENT HOUSE AND ANRversusBANK OF BARODA AND ANR

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous because the bank deferred the possession and the securitisation application was to be heard the next day.

Summary

The petitioners, Limra Garment House and another, filed a writ petition seeking urgent relief to prevent the Bank of Baroda, a secured creditor, from taking physical possession of a property on 27 July 2026. They argued that the possession would render their securitisation application (Diary No.1170 of 2026) pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal‑II, Mumbai, and the associated interim application, ineffective. The bank indicated that, following its notice dated 6 July 2026, the intended possession was being deferred, thereby addressing the petitioners' immediate concern. The court noted that the securitisation application was scheduled for hearing the next day, making the writ petition moot. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition without addressing the validity of the earlier DRT notice, reserving that issue for a suitable future case.

Issues considered

  • What relief, if any, should be granted to prevent the bank from taking physical possession of the property pending the securitisation application before the DRT?

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • securitisation
  • possession
  • Debts Recovery Tribunal
  • urgent relief
  • infructuous

Judgment

                                                                                        18_WP_9525_26.doc



                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                               WRIT PETITION NO. 9525 OF 2026

                             Limra Garment House and another               …            Petitioners
                                         vs.
                             Bank of Baroda and another                    …            Respondents

                             Mr. Mandar Soman a/w. Mr. Vivek Vasant Phadke for petitioners.
                             Mr. Anup Khaitan a/w. Mr. Harsh Gutka and Ms. Akshita Rathudi, i/b.
                             Anup Khaitan & Co. for respondent No.1 – bank.

                                                              CORAM :      MANISH PITALE &
                                                                           SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
                                                              DATE     :   27th JULY, 2026
                             P.C. :


                             .        The petitioners were constrained to file this writ petition and
                             to have it circulated urgently for today, as the Court Commissioner
                             has issued notice dated 06.07.2026 at the behest of respondent No.1
                             – bank (secured creditor) to take physical possession of the subject
                             property today i.e. on 27.07.2026.


                             2.       The grievance of the petitioners is that Securitisation
                             Application (Diary) No.1170 of 2026 was filed before the Debts
                             Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (DRT) on 21.07.2026. But, urgent
                             circulation was not granted. It is submitted that if physical possession
                             of the subject property is taken, it would render the securitisation
                             application and the interim application filed therein, infructuous. It is
                             submitted that the petitioners and other similarly situated litigants
                             are constrained to invoke writ jurisdiction in such circumstances
                             because the notice/circular dated 30.03.2026 issued by the Assistant
                             Registrar of DRT, is practically unworkable and in most cases, urgent

          Digitally signed
          by PRIYA
PRIYA  KAMBLI
       Date:
KAMBLI 2026.07.27
       18:15:52
          +0530
                                                                                                      1/2
                                                                  18_WP_9525_26.doc



     circulation is not granted, even when the threat of physical
     possession is pointed out to the Debts Recovery Tribunals.


     3.        In this case, upon notice and papers being served upon the
     respondent No.1 – bank, it is represented through counsel. The
     learned counsel for the said respondent makes a statement on
     instructions that in pursuance of the aforesaid notice dated
     06.07.2026, the action of taking physical possession today is being
     deferred. This effectively addresses the concern of the petitioners.


     4.        It is an admitted position that the securitisation application is
     listed tomorrow before the DRT for consideration. In that light,
     nothing really survives in this petition.


     5.        As regards challenge to the notice dated 30.03.2026 issued by
     the Assistant Registrar, DRT, since this petition is rendered
     infructuous, the question raised in respect of validity of the said
     notice shall be considered in an appropriate case.


     6.        Writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending
     applications, if any, also stand disposed of.




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




Priya Kambli




                                                                                2/2


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.