CRYSTAL COLD STORAGE CO PVT LTD ASHLESHA SURYAWANSHI vs INDIAN BANK AND ORS — IA/3584/2026

Case under Securitisation & Reconstruction of Finiancial Assets Act Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010241732026

Filing Number

IA/14201/2026

Filing Date

07-May-2026

Registration No

IA/3584/2026

Registration Date

07-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez Dubash

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez Dubash

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

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Securitisation & Reconstruction of Finiancial Assets Act Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CRYSTAL COLD STORAGE CO PVT LTD ASHLESHA SURYAWANSHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.INDIAN BANK AND ORS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez DubashView PDF

    Case Summary: IA 3584/2026 The Bombay High Court directed the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT-1 Mumbai) to decide the applicant's stay application (IA 928/2026) on its own merits, independent of the Court's May 5th order directing asset seizure on May 18th. The Court found that Indian Bank failed to disclose the pending securitisation proceedings and stay application, requiring urgent consideration of the stay plea without being influenced by the asset possession order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez Dubash

  4. 07-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. IA/3584/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: IA 3584/2026 The Bombay High Court directed the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT-1 Mumbai) to decide the applicant's stay application (IA 928/2026) on its own merits, independent of the Court's May 5th order directing asset seizure on May 18th. The Court found that Indian Bank failed to disclose the pending securitisation proceedings and stay application, requiring urgent consideration of the stay plea without being influenced by the asset possession order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case