NARENDRA NANDKISHOR BORATE AND ANR vs TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED THR. ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND ORS Advocate - VIKAS SALVI AND ASSOCITES — WP/11067/2025

Case under Securitisation & Reconstruction of Finiancial Assets Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 23rd April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010407982025

Filing Number

WP/25881/2025

Filing Date

28-Jul-2025

Registration No

WP/11067/2025

Registration Date

12-Aug-2025

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--Allowed

Last updated 27-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Securitisation & Reconstruction of Finiancial Assets Act Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NARENDRA NANDKISHOR BORATE AND ANR

    Adv. Ayodhya Patki

  2. 2.SHEETAL NARENDRA BORATE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED THR. ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND ORS Advocate - VIKAS SALVI AND ASSOCITES

  2. 2.M/S. VIGHNAHAR AUTO PARTS PVT. LTD.

    Adv. Prama Raval

  3. 3.M/S TESTO ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD.

    Adv. Prama Raval

  4. 4.RAMDAS HARIBHAU PANHALE

    Adv. Prama Raval

  5. 5.SANDHYA RAMDAS PANHALE

    Adv. Prama Raval

  6. 6.ASHISH RAMDAS PANHALE

    Adv. Prama Raval

  7. 7.VASUDHA ASHISH PANHALE

    Adv. Prama Raval

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak ShirsatView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/11067/2025 Court Decision: The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the DRAT's order dated 10 December 2024 to the extent that it directed possession of the residential property to await DRT's decision on a pending securitisation application. The court held the DRAT committed a jurisdictional error by issuing directions beyond the scope of the appeal after finding it infructuous, and noted that no substantive challenge to the residential property sale remained pending before the DRT. Key Reasoning: Once the DRAT concluded the appeal was infructuous (the requested time extension had expired), it had no authority to discuss whether both properties needed sale or to stay possession. Additionally, the only pending securitisation application before the DRT concerned commercial property, not the residential property, making any interim relief improper without final relief claimed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Apr-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat

  4. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak ShirsatView PDF

  5. 17-Apr-2026

    High On Board (Hob)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat

  6. 02-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak ShirsatView PDF

  7. 02-Apr-2026

    High On Board -

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat

  8. 12-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak ShirsatView PDF

  9. 30-Jan-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat

  10. 23-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak ShirsatView PDF

  11. 23-Dec-2025

    High On Board (Hob)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez Dubash

  12. 16-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez DubashView PDF

  13. 10-Dec-2025

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez Dubash

  14. 19-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez DubashView PDF

  15. 19-Nov-2025

    Due Admission - 1

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez Dubash

  16. 04-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez DubashView PDF

  17. 04-Nov-2025

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla , Hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez Dubash

  18. 06-Oct-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. I. Chagla,hon'ble Shri Justice Farhan Parvez DubashView PDF

  19. 06-Oct-2025

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shyam C. Chandak

  20. 25-Aug-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam,hon'ble Shri Justice Shyam C. ChandakView PDF

  21. 25-Aug-2025

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shyam C. Chandak

  22. 20-Aug-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam,hon'ble Shri Justice Shyam C. ChandakView PDF

  23. 20-Aug-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 28-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/11067/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/11067/2025 Court Decision: The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the DRAT's order dated 10 December 2024 to the extent that it directed possession of the residential property to await DRT's decision on a pending securitisation application. The court held the DRAT committed a jurisdictional error by issuing directions beyond the scope of the appeal after finding it infructuous, and noted that no substantive challenge to the residential property sale remained pending before the DRT. Key Reasoning: Once the DRAT concluded the appeal was infructuous (the requested time extension had expired), it had no authority to discuss whether both properties needed sale or to stay possession. Additionally, the only pending securitisation application before the DRT concerned commercial property, not the residential property, making any interim relief improper without final relief claimed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case