Shree Durga Katelshwari Enterprises vs Piramal Capital And Housing Finance Ltd
2026 Latest Caselaw 3456 Bom

Bombay High Court

Shree Durga Katelshwari Enterprises vs Piramal Capital And Housing Finance Ltd on 6 April, 2026

Author: Manish Pitale

Bench: Manish Pitale

                                                                                               501_WP4435_26.doc



                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                                    WRIT PETITION NO.4435 OF 2026

                             Shree Durga Katelshwari Enterprises            ...                 Petitioner
                             Vs.
                             Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited
                             (Formerly known as Dewan Housing Finance Ltd.) ...                 Respondents

                             Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav S. Kulkarni,
                             Mr.Rishikesh G. Bhagat and Mr. Farhan Sheikh i/b. Mr. Prerak Sharma for
                             Petitioner.
                             Mr. Nikhil Mehta i/b. KMC Legal Venture for Respondent.

                                                                 CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
                                                                         SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

DATE : APRIL 06, 2026

P.C. :

. Heard Mr. Khandeparkar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the original borrower, who has approached this Court claiming grave urgency in the matter. It is stated that physical possession of the secured asset is likely to be taken tomorrow i.e. 07.04.2026 by the respondent (secured creditor). This petition was mentioned in the morning session and in the light of the urgency projected on behalf of the petitioner, it is taken up in the production board.

3. The learned counsel representing the respondent secured creditor was served with the papers, according to him, only a few minutes ago and he has appeared before this Court.

4. We have observed a tendency amongst borrowers / guarantors /

MINAL SANDIP

by MINAL mortgagors to approach the Writ Court one day prior to the act of the SANDIP Date:

PARAB

PARAB 2026.04.06 17:46:46 +0530

501_WP4435_26.doc

secured creditor taking possession of the secured asset in pursuance of the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'Securitisation Act'). A grave sense of urgency is always sought to be created so that the Writ Court, in some instances, on the basis of sympathy, ends up granting an interim order, which remains in force to the detriment of the secured creditor.

5. In the present case, it is undisputed that the Competent Magistrate passed an order as far back as on 10.03.2023 under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act, as a culmination of the proceedings initiated by the respondent secured creditor under Section 13(2) thereof. As is observed in such cases, the petitioner despite being the borrower, continued to remain a fence sitter till the year 2026, when a securitisation application along with an interim application was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (DRT). The DRT has considered the contentions of the petitioner and rejected the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner in the interim application, specifically observing that the petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case in its favour.

6. The respondent secured creditor issued possession notice on 17.03.2026, stating that physical possession of the secured asset shall be taken tomorrow i.e. 07.04.2026. But, the petitioner waited till 30.03.2026 to file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).

7. The petitioner has raised a grievance in this petition that it is unable to secure any hearing for consideration of its prayer for ad- interim relief before the DRAT as the appeal is still under process and even objections have not been notified.

8. We find that nothing prevented the petitioner from moving the

501_WP4435_26.doc

DRAT immediately after the order dated 05.03.2026 was passed by the DRT, rejecting the interim application filed on behalf of the petitioner. We also find that filing this petition on 04.04.2026 and mentioning it for circulation in the morning today i.e. one day prior to the date fixed for taking physical possession of the secured asset is, prima facie, found to be a tactic adopted by the petitioner to somehow create a sense of contrived urgency.

9. Elaborate submissions are sought to be made on behalf of the petitioner to indicate that there appears to be a calculation error on the part of the respondent secured creditor and that, sufficient amount has been repaid. We do not wish to fall prey to the tactics adopted by the petitioner and therefore, we are not inclined to grant any ad-interim relief in this petition.

10. Upon the insistence of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the matter can be worked out as the details of the calculation shall be placed before this Court, we are inclined to keep this writ petition pending.

11. Issue notice, returnable on 17.04.2026, High on Board.

12. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of the sole respondent.

13. Reply affidavit shall be filed in the meanwhile.

14. As noted hereinabove, prayer for ad-interim relief is rejected.

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

Minal Parab