[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Muthoot Housing Finance Company Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra Thro The Honble ... on 30 March, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
9_WP9108_25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9108 OF 2025
Muthoot Housing Finance Company Limited
and others ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents
Mr. Yohaan Limathwala a/w. Mr. Indrajeet Hingane and Mr. Shreekrishna
Khairnar for Petitioners.
Ms. Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP for Respondents-State.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 30, 2026
P.C. :
. Heard Mr. Limathwala, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The learned AGP represents the respondent State authorities.
3. The petitioner No.1 is a secured creditor and it is constrained to
approach this Court along with its authorized officer as the respondents
have not been able to perform their duties, as expected under the
provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'Securitisation
Act'), judgements of this Court and Circular dated 22.04.2019 issued by
the respondent State itself.
4. The petitioners are aggrieved by the act of respondent No.2
Tahsildar in delegating his authority to respondent No.3 Circle Officer
MINAL Digitally signed
SANDIP
PARAB
by MINAL
SANDIP PARAB
Date: 2026.03.30
17:41:52 +0530
for execution of an order passed by the Competent Magistrate under
Section 14 of the Securitisation Act. We are in agreement with the
9_WP9108_25.doc
contention of the petitioner that such further delegation cannot be
countenanced.
5. In the present case, the Competent Magistrate passed the aforesaid
order under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act as far back as on
11.07.2024. In complete breach of the position of law and the procedure,
by addressing a communication on 05.09.2024, the respondent No.2
Tahsildar delegated his authority and responsibility of executing the
order of the Competent Magistrate to the respondent No.3 Circle Officer.
6. Thereupon, the record shows that the Circle Officer made
attempts between 25.09.2024 and 15.04.2025 to execute the order of the
Competent Magistrate and to take possession of the subject secured
asset. All the attempts met with failure.
7. It is contended before this Court that even the police authorities
have been asking for various documents from the petitioner No.1
secured creditor when they are approached for providing police
assistance for taking possession of the secured asset.
8. If that be so, we find that the same is in the teeth of the aforesaid
Government Circular dated 22.04.2019, particularly clause 3 thereof. We
also find that by an order dated 16.01.2019, a Division Bench of this
Court in Writ Petition No.12 of 2019 (Dombivli Nagari Sahakari Bank
Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra) had issued a specific direction in
paragraph 5 to the State to issue such a Circular. The introduction /
preface in the said Circular dated 22.04.2019, specifically refers to the
said order passed by this Court. Thus, the respondent State authorities
are bound by directions of this Court, crystallized in the said Circular
dated 22.04.2019.
9. We find that such a situation where the orders passed by
9_WP9108_25.doc
Competent Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act are not
executed and the secured creditor is unable to enjoy the fruits of actions
lawfully undertaken as per the provisions of the Securitisation Act,
demonstrates collapse of rule of law. The same cannot be countenanced.
The respondent State authorities are expected to act with promptitude in
such cases.
10. The documents on record clearly show that the attempts of the
petitioners have been frustrated despite the said order dated 11.07.2024
passed by the Competent Magistrate in their favour.
11. The fact that there cannot be any further delegation by the
Tahsildar is also evident from the orders passed by this Court in the
cases of Punjab National Bank Vs. State of Maharashtra and others,
2019 SCC OnLine Bom.11540 and AU Small Finance Bank Limited Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 3863.
12. In view of the above, we direct as follows:-
a. Respondent No.2 Tahsildar shall fix the date for taking
physical possession of the secured asset as 15.04.2026 and
he shall issue notices accordingly;
b. Respondent No.2 Tahsildar shall undertake the said
exercise of executing the order of the Competent
Magistrate passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation
Act, himself personally without delegating the authority to
any other officer, including respondent No.3 Circle Officer;
c. Senior Police Inspector of Shahapur Police Station,
Shahapur, Thane shall provide appropriate police assistance
to respondent No.2 Tahsildar to comply with the directions
given hereinabove;
d. Adequate number of police personnel, including lady
9_WP9108_25.doc
constables shall be made available and the police shall use
reasonable, proportionate and necessary police force to take
physical possession of the secured asset;
e. Respondent Nos.2 and 6 shall ensure that the above
directions are scrupulously complied with, failing which,
the respondent No.2 Tahsildar, Shahapur and the Senior
Police Inspector, Shahapur Police Station, Thane shall
remain personally present in this Court on the next date of
listing;
13. List under the caption 'for compliance' on 17.04.2026.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Minal Parab
