[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Anand Rajesham Mittapelli vs Capri Global Capital Limited on 10 March, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2026:BHC-AS:11710-DB
501-WP-48-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 48 OF 2026
Anand Rajesham Mittapell and Anr. .. Petitioners
V/s.
Capri Global Capital Limited .. Respondent
-------------------
Mr. Vivek N. Machha with Rajni Vivek Machha, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Chetan Agrawal with Rushikesh Bhorania, for the Respondents.
--------------------
Digitally
signed by
VARSHA
VARSHA DEEPAK
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
DEEPAK GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.03.10
18:10:29
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
+0530
DATE : 10th MARCH 2026.
PC:
1. In this petition on 6th March 2026, we had passed an order
making some observations about the manner in which the DRT had
passed orders when notices were issued by the Court Commissioner for
taking physical possession of the secured asset in pursuance of the
order passed by the Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation
And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security
Interest Act, 2002. We noted the submission made on behalf of the
Petitioners that on every occasion that an Interim Application was
moved before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai (DRT) in
pending Securitisation Application No. 43 of 2015, specific amounts
were directed to be deposited, subject to which, notices issued for
taking physical possession were deferred.
varsha 1 of 4
501-WP-48-2026.doc
2. It was submitted that in the process, the Petitioners deposited
amount of Rs. 9.5 lakh in total, and yet the Respondents have been
intermittently activating such process of taking physical possession of
the secured asset and in that light, this Court may consider passing
urgent interim order in the Writ Petition.
3. The urgency was based on a recent notice dated 24/02/2026
issued by the Court Commissioner for execution of warrant of
possession, specifying the date of the execution of warrant as
11/03/2026.
4. When we saw that there was no prayer in the Writ Petition
pertaining to the said notice, we permitted the Petitioners to amend
the Writ Petition and directed listing of the Writ Petition yesterday i.e.
09/03/2026, High on Board.
5. The petition could not reach for hearing and hence in the
morning today an urgent mentioning was made by the learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioners, stating that the amendment as directed
by this Court had been carried out and in that light we directed the
Writ Petition to be taken up for production at 3:00p.m.
6. Before we could consider the rival submissions, the learned
counsel for the Respondents submitted that simultaneously the
Petitioners also filed an interim application in pending Securitisation
Application No. 43 of 2015 yesterday for similar prayer of restraining
the respondent no. 2 from taking physical possession of the property. It
is submitted that even a copy of the application was not furnished to
the Respondents and it is only when the learned counsel for the
varsha 2 of 4
501-WP-48-2026.doc
Respondents was in the process of checking the listing of other matters
before the DRT that it came to light that such an interim application
was filed by the Petitioners and that it was listed today at Sr. No. 77
before the DRT and that now it is listed tomorrow.
7. We find that the Petitioners are riding two horses at the same
time, which cannot be permitted. Even otherwise, as regards the
grievance of the Petitioners they do have an alternative remedy of
approaching the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (DRAT) but we
were inclined to show some indulgence by entertaining this Writ
Petition in the light of the circumstances brought to our notice. But
since the Petitioners themselves have chosen to knock the doors of the
DRT for virtually the same reliefs as they have specifically referred to
possession warrant likely be executed on 11/03/2026 in the
application filed yesterday i.e. 09/03/2026 before the DRT, we are no
longer inclined to show any further indulgence to the Petitioners.
8. Nonetheless, the urgency of the matter cannot be disputed and
since the Petitioners have already moved the DRT in the said
application filed yesterday, we propose to issue appropriate directions
to the DRT for consideration of ad-interim / interim relief.
9. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
10. However, we direct the Debt Recovery Tribunal- III Mumbai
(presently In-charge, DRT-1) to positively take up the interim
application filed by the Petitioners yesterday i.e. 09/03/2026 in
pending Securitisation Application No. 43 of 2015 for consideration of
the ad interim / interim relief tomorrow (11/03/2026).
varsha 3 of 4
501-WP-48-2026.doc
11. The DRT is directed to take up the application and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law tomorrow itself, considering
that possession warrant is sought to be executed tomorrow by the
Respondents.
12. The learned counsel for the Respondents, on instructions, makes
a statement that till the DRT takes up the aforesaid interim application
and passes any order thereon tomorrow, the notice dated 24/02/2025
will not be acted upon.
13. The Petitioners are at liberty to make all the submissions before
the DRT, including their claim that rate of interest was wrongly
modified by the Respondents.
14. Equally, the Respondents are entitled to refute the same.
15. With these observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
16. The DRT shall also make an endeavour to ensure that pleadings
in the securitisation application are completed at the earliest and that
the securitisation application itself is taken up and disposed of
expeditiously.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
varsha 4 of 4
