Emveebee Media Private Limited vs The Cosmos Co operative Bank Limited — WP/5246/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 23rd April 2026.
CNR: HCBM010166552026
e-Filing Number
02-04-2026
Filing Number
WP/9643/2026
Filing Date
02-Apr-2026
Registration No
WP/5246/2026
Registration Date
17-Apr-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat
Bench Type
Division
Category
MERCANTILE LAWS COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS , BANKS ( 28 )
Sub-Category
MATTERS RELATING TO SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS ( 10 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
23-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 28-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Emveebee Media Private Limited
Adv. R N KACHAVE
Respondent(s)
-
1.The Cosmos Co operative Bank Limited
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak ShirsatView PDF
The Bombay High Court dismissed Emveebee Media's writ petition challenging an auction sale conducted by Cosmos Co-operative Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Act, 2002. The court held that such grievances must be raised through the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), noting the petitioner had already filed Securitisation Application No. 83 of 2026 before DRT-II, Mumbai, and failed to present any extraordinary circumstances or material justifying writ jurisdiction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Apr-2026
Fresh Admission
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat
-
02-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/5246/2026
The Bombay High Court dismissed Emveebee Media's writ petition challenging an auction sale conducted by Cosmos Co-operative Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Act, 2002. The court held that such grievances must be raised through the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), noting the petitioner had already filed Securitisation Application No. 83 of 2026 before DRT-II, Mumbai, and failed to present any extraordinary circumstances or material justifying writ jurisdiction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts