bipin prithiani 1 907-wp-15683.25.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15683 OF 2025 Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents ****** Mr. Alok D. Mishra for Petitioner. Mrs. M. S. bane, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Samir Vaidya a/w Mr. Siddharth Nair for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. ****** CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. : . In this petition, on 12th August 2026, this Court had passed an order, directing that physical possession of the secured asset shall be taken on 18th August 2026 and in that light, appropriate directions were issued to the respondent-State Authorities in the said order. This Court recorded the blatant manner in which the secured asset was trespassed, despite physical possession of the secured asset having been taken in pursuance of earlier order dated 27th February 2026 passed by this Court. Upon finding that the subject property i.e. the secured asset was being repeatedly trespassed, specific directions were issued and it was also directed that the Commissioner of Police, Pune shall provide details as to in BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Digitally signed by BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date: 2026.09.23 10:19:26 +0530 bipin prithiani 2 907-wp-15683.25.doc how many such cases of trespass in District Pune FIRs had been registered. This was in the backdrop of a number of such cases being brought to the notice of this Court in writ jurisdiction by secured creditors, with regard to the impunity with which the secured assets were being trespassed after physical possession had been duly handed over to the secured creditor/ auction purchaser. 2. Today, when the petition is taken up for consideration, the learned AGP informs this Court that the directions issued as per the order dated 12th August 2026 have been complied with. This is confirmed by the learned counsel for the petitioner (secured creditor). He further submits that the physical possession of the secured asset has now been handed over to the auction purchaser. 3. The learned AGP has tendered an additional affidavit of the Senior Police Inspector of Kothrud Police Station, placing on record the details as to the manner in which physical possession of the secured asset was again taken and that FIR dated 18th August 2026 was registered. A compliance report on behalf of Commissioner of Police, giving details about the number of FIRs registered in such cases in District Pune, is also tendered. The additional affidavit and the compliance report are taken on record. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 (borrowers) submits that the petitioner (secured creditor) did not apprise this Court about the borrowers having approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Pune (DRT), as per Securitisation Application No.600 of 2023. It is submitted that bipin prithiani 3 907-wp-15683.25.doc the order passed in this writ petition may not prejudice the hearing and disposal of the pending Securitisation Application. Since, it is an admitted position that no interim order is operating in the Securitisation Application, mere pendency of the same cannot be a ground for the borrowers to claim that this Court could not have issued appropriate directions. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 6. Needless to say, the DRT shall proceed to hear and decide the pending Securitisation Application, on its own merits. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)