18_WP_9525_26.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9525 OF 2026 Limra Garment House and another … Petitioners vs. Bank of Baroda and another … Respondents Mr. Mandar Soman a/w. Mr. Vivek Vasant Phadke for petitioners. Mr. Anup Khaitan a/w. Mr. Harsh Gutka and Ms. Akshita Rathudi, i/b. Anup Khaitan & Co. for respondent No.1 – bank. CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ DATE : 27th JULY, 2026 P.C. : . The petitioners were constrained to file this writ petition and to have it circulated urgently for today, as the Court Commissioner has issued notice dated 06.07.2026 at the behest of respondent No.1 – bank (secured creditor) to take physical possession of the subject property today i.e. on 27.07.2026. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that Securitisation Application (Diary) No.1170 of 2026 was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (DRT) on 21.07.2026. But, urgent circulation was not granted. It is submitted that if physical possession of the subject property is taken, it would render the securitisation application and the interim application filed therein, infructuous. It is submitted that the petitioners and other similarly situated litigants are constrained to invoke writ jurisdiction in such circumstances because the notice/circular dated 30.03.2026 issued by the Assistant Registrar of DRT, is practically unworkable and in most cases, urgent 1/2 PRIYA KAMBLI Digitally signed by PRIYA KAMBLI Date: 2026.07.27 18:15:52 +0530 18_WP_9525_26.doc circulation is not granted, even when the threat of physical possession is pointed out to the Debts Recovery Tribunals. 3. In this case, upon notice and papers being served upon the respondent No.1 – bank, it is represented through counsel. The learned counsel for the said respondent makes a statement on instructions that in pursuance of the aforesaid notice dated 06.07.2026, the action of taking physical possession today is being deferred. This effectively addresses the concern of the petitioners. 4. It is an admitted position that the securitisation application is listed tomorrow before the DRT for consideration. In that light, nothing really survives in this petition. 5. As regards challenge to the notice dated 30.03.2026 issued by the Assistant Registrar, DRT, since this petition is rendered infructuous, the question raised in respect of validity of the said notice shall be considered in an appropriate case. 6. Writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) 2/2 Priya Kambli