Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: 14 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: M/s. Pushkaraj Plastics Industries (Thr. Partner Arvind S. Nikam and others) and M/s. Khatu Chemicals Industries (Thr. Partner Arvind S. Nikam and others).
  • Respondents: Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Cooperation and others (including the secured creditor bank).
  • Writ Petition Numbers: 13800 of 2026, 13805 of 2026, and 13816 of 2026, filed jointly and circulated on the supplementary list on the ground of extreme urgency.
  • Counsel for petitioners: Ms. Prachi Kolambekar and Ms. Kajal Naidu. Counsel for respondents (UOI): Dr. G. R. Sharma (through V.C.) with Ms. Naveena Kumai, Ms. Aparna Rajeshwari, and Mr. Anirudh Warrier. Counsel for bank respondents: Mr. Nikhil Rajani (through V.C.) with Mr. Ajay Deshmane, i/b. V. Deshpande & Co.
  • Background: Petitioners had filed securitisation applications in 2024, which were dismissed for want of prosecution when the respondent bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
  • Auction History: Five prior auction attempts failed. The sixth auction notice dated 10.09.2026 led to an auction conducted on 30.09.2026. An auction purchaser subsequently deposited 50% of the bid amount.
  • Timing of Securitisation Applications: Petitioners filed new securitisation applications on 07.10.2026, i.e., seven days after the auction sale, despite being aware of the auction schedule.
  • DRT Proceedings: The Debt Recovery Tribunal – II, Mumbai (DRT) granted circulation of the securitisation applications and interim applications on 22.10.2026.

Final Outcome

  • The Court dismissed all three writ petitions, holding that no urgent interim relief could be granted as the auction purchaser had already deposited 50% of the bid and the DRT was set to consider the applications on 22.10.2026.
  • The Court emphasized that petitioners may pursue their statutory remedies before the DRT but did not express any opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute; all rights and contentions of the parties remain open.

Topics: Securitisation, Auction Sale, Court Order