Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 14 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: M/s. Pushkaraj Plastics Industries, M/s. Shine Plastic Industries, and M/s. Khatu Chemicals Industries, each represented by Thr. Partner Arvind S. Nikam and others.
  • Respondents: Union of India (through Secretary, Ministry of Cooperation) and a bank (secured creditor), represented by Dr. G. R. Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Rajani respectively.
  • The three writ petitions (Nos. 13800, 13805, 13816 of 2026) were filed on an urgent basis and placed in the supplementary list on 14 Oct 2026.
  • Petitioners sought interim protection, arguing that securitisation applications and interim applications filed on their behalf had been granted circulation before the Debts Recovery Tribunal – II, Mumbai (DRT) on 22 Oct 2026.
  • They contended that an auction purchaser had emerged, had deposited 50% of the bid amount, and that without urgent interim relief third‑party rights could prejudice the borrowers.
  • The bank argued that 50% of the bid amount was already deposited, circulation was granted for 22 Oct 2026, and therefore no urgent relief was justified.
  • The court noted admitted facts: the petitioners had previously filed securitisation applications in 2024, which were dismissed for want of prosecution; they lacked resources to repay the debt, prompting the bank to proceed.
  • Five prior auction attempts failed; the sixth auction notice dated 10 Sep 2026 led to an auction on 30 Sep 2026. The petitioners filed securitisation applications on 07 Oct 2026, seven days after the auction.
  • The court found that filing the applications after the auction, despite awareness of the auction schedule and prior dismissals, did not merit indulgence.
  • The auction purchaser’s 50% deposit and the bank’s lawful continuation of proceedings did not create a basis for the court to grant protection before the DRT considers the applications on 22 Oct 2026.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petitions are dismissed.
  • The court expressly states it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter; all rights and contentions of the parties remain open for future determination.

Topics: Court Order, Securitisation, Auction Proceedings