Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6943 (BOM)

MOTILAL OSWAL HOME FINANCE LTD THRU OFFICER v. MAHADEV ALO GHARAT AND ANR

WP/11656/2026 · 2026-09-07

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

23-WP-11656-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11656 OF 2026 Motilal Oswal Home Finance Ltd Thru Officer … Petitioner Versus Mahadev Alo Gharat and another … Respondents ****** Mr. Umar F. Azam, a/w Authorised Officer Varun Prakash, for Petitioner. None for Respondents. ****** CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 07th SEPTEMBER 2026. PC: 1. The Petitioner is a secured creditor, aggrieved by order dated 22/02/2026 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal – II, Mumbai as in-charge of DRT-III in Securitisation Application No. 561 of 2025. 2. The impugned order appears to be an ad-interim order restraining the Petitioner from taking further steps action or further steps regarding auction proceedings. 3. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order on merits, an appeal could be filed before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. But it is brought to our notice that the Petitioner has filed an application bearing Interim Application No. 2117/2026 in the pending securitisation application, for vacating the impugned order dated 22/02/2026. This Court is informed that despite mentioning the said application for listing and urgent orders, DRT-II Bhalerao 1 SWEETY RAJU BHALERAO Digitally signed by SWEETY RAJU BHALERAO Date: 2026.09.08 14:44:20 +0530 23-WP-11656-2026.doc as in-charge of DRT-III, Mumbai has not been able to take up the said application for orders. 4. We are further informed that now the said interim application along with the pending securitisation application is directed to be listed on 08/12/2026. 5. We find that in the impugned order dated 22/02/2026, it is recorded that none was present on behalf of the Respondents, i.e. the Petitioner in this petition and the order obviously appears to be an ad-interim order. Since the Petitioner is aggrieved by the same and it has already filed the aforesaid application for vacating the said order, we are of the opinion that the DRT should hear the aforesaid application at the earliest and not relegate hearing of the said application along with securitisation application in December 2026. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by directing DRT- II as in-charge of DRT-III, Mumbai to immediately take up pending Interim Application No. 2117/2026 in Securisation Application No. 561/2025 for consideration and orders. The hearing of the said interim application is expedited and DRT-II as in-charge of DRT-III, Mumbai is directed to ensure that Interim Application No. 2117 of 2026 is heard and disposed of expeditiously and in any case on or before 31st October 2026. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Bhalerao 2