Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Order Date: 16 October 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited, a secured creditor.
- Respondents: Chief Judicial Magistrate, Esplanade; Registrar of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate; State of Maharashtra; and several respondents from the original securitisation application, notably Respondent No.5, the original applicant and mortgager in TSA No.33 of 2016.
- The petitioner challenged an order dated 08‑May‑2026 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that prohibited physical possession of the subject property until the next listing date.
- The challenged order stemmed from an earlier order dated 25‑July‑2025, which itself related to the petitioner’s application to be substituted as the original applicant and to enforce an order dated 20‑Dec‑2008 under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
- During the hearing, parties consented to dispose of the writ petition in a manner that would facilitate the disposal of the pending securitisation proceeding (TSA No.33 of 2016) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal – I, Mumbai (DRT).
- The petitioner assured the Court that it would not seek physical possession of the property based on the 2008 order and the 25‑July‑2025 order until the DRT resolves the pending securitisation application.
Final Outcome
- The Court, with the consent of Respondent No.5, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 08‑May‑2026.
- The petitioner recorded that it will not proceed to take physical possession of the subject property on the basis of the 20‑Dec‑2008 order read with the 25‑July‑2025 order until the DRT disposes of TSA No.33 of 2016.
- The DRT is directed to expedite the hearing and dispose of the pending TSA No.33 of 2016 on or before 31‑Dec‑2026.
- Respondent No.5 undertakes to implead the petitioner as a party in the pending securitisation application within two weeks from the date of this order, effecting the necessary amendment.
- The petitioner may file a further affidavit within one week of being impleaded; if Respondent No.5 wishes to respond, it must file its affidavit within two weeks thereafter.
- The Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute and all rights and contentions remain expressly open.
- Consequently, Miscellaneous Application No.1656/Misc./26 filed by Respondent No.5 before the Magistrate is treated as disposed, and the writ petition is disposed of in the terms outlined.
Topics: Legal Proceedings, Securitisation