Authority: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Order Date: 28 August 2026
Case Overview
- Applicant/Petitioner: Manoj Bhimrao Dalvi; Respondents: Aspire Housing Finance Limited and others.
- Interim Application No. 6626 of 2026 sought condonation of a 13‑day delay in filing a review petition against the Court’s order dated 30‑06‑2026 in Writ Petition No. 676 of 2026.
- The review petition challenges the earlier order that the writ petition should not be entertained because the grievance falls within the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
- The petitioner had earlier filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23941 of 2026 in the Supreme Court, which was dismissed; the Supreme Court recorded a statement that the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition and approach the High Court for review, reserving liberty to file such a review.
- Counsel highlighted paragraph 7 of the 30‑06‑2026 order, arguing that the facts differ from Himanshu Singh & others v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine SC 553) and that alleged fraud precludes DRT jurisdiction, warranting writ jurisdiction.
- The Court referred to Supreme Court judgments United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon (2010) 8 SCC 110 and Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited (2024) 2 SCC 1, reaffirming that aggrieved parties have a statutory remedy before the DRT and writ petitions in such matters should not be entertained.
- No apparent error on the face of the record was found.
Final Outcome
- The Court condoned the 13‑day delay in filing the review petition (Application No. 6626 of 2026).
- The review petition was dismissed, confirming that the DRT is the appropriate forum for the grievance and that the earlier order stands.
- The order was signed digitally by MINAL SANDIP PARAB on 28‑08‑2026 at 17:31:34 +0530.
Topics: Judicial Review, Debt Recovery Tribunal Jurisdiction, Housing Finance Litigation