Asrec ( India ) Limited Thr. Auth. Signatory vs State of… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2026)

Asrec ( India ) Limited Thr. Auth. Signatory vs State of… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim compliance directions issued: Respondent No. 3 - Court Commissioner to issue notice for taking possession of the secured asset on 30th March 2026; Respondent No. 4 (Senior Police Inspector, Rabodi Police Station, Thane (West)) to provide adequate police assistance including lady constables, with liberty to use reasonable, proportionate and necessary force; Respondent No. 4 to appear personally before the Court if the direction is not complied with; matter listed under the caption for compliance on 2nd April 2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ Court should intervene where a secured asset, whose physical possession was duly obtained under a Section 14 Securitisation Act order executed on 14/02/2025, was re-encroached upon on 09/05/2025 and the police took no action on the Petitioner's complaint.

Court's answer

The Court found this to be another case of blatant violation of the rule of law.

Ratio / Principle

Secured creditors repeatedly face re-encroachment and trespass upon secured assets, mostly by borrowers or their representatives, even after Section 14 Magistrate orders have been duly executed; the Court held this shows a complete breakdown of the rule of law which cannot be permitted when brought to the notice of the writ Court.

Key takeaways

The Court directed Respondent No. 3 - Court Commissioner to issue notice for taking possession of the secured asset on 30th March 2026.ratio¶23
Respondent No. 4, Senior Police Inspector of Rabodi Police Station, Thane (West), was directed to provide adequate police assistance to the Court Commissioner, including lady constables, for execution of the direction to take physical possession of the secured asset.ratio¶24
The police were given liberty to use reasonable, proportionate and necessary force to ensure compliance with the Court's direction for taking possession.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.), Writ Petition No. 14482 of 2025, decision dated 17 March 2026. ASREC (India) Limited, a secured creditor acting under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, had obtained an order dated 12/01/2025 from the competent Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act for physical possession of the secured asset; a Court Commissioner was appointed and possession was duly taken on 14/02/2025 (panchnama at Exhibit-'B'). On 09/05/2025 the secured asset was again encroached upon and trespassed, and the Petitioner's complaint to the Senior Police Inspector, Rabodi Police Station, Thane (West), drew no action. Finding this a blatant violation of the rule of law, and observing that secured creditors repeatedly suffer re-encroachment of assets even after duly executed Section 14 orders, mostly by borrowers or their representatives, the Court held this showed a complete breakdown of the rule of law that could not be permitted when brought to the notice of the writ Court. The Court directed Respondent No. 3 (Court Commissioner) to issue notice for taking possession on 30th March 2026, ordered Respondent No. 4 (Senior Police Inspector, Rabodi Police Station, Thane (West)) to render adequate police assistance including lady constables, permitted the police to use reasonable, proportionate and necessary force, required the Senior Police Inspector's personal appearance before the Court upon any non-compliance, and listed the matter for compliance on 2nd April 2026.

21-wp-14482-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 14482 OF 2025

ASREC ( India ) Limited Thr. Auth. .. Petitioner Signatory

V/s.

State Of Maharashtra And Ors .. Respondents

Mr. Sanjay Anabhawane i/by Medha Rane, for Petitioner.

Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. G.P. with Ms. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP, for Respondent / State.

Mr. Devendra Tiwari, for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 17^th MARCH 2026.

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA DEEPAK DEEPAK GAIKWAD GAIKWAD Date: 2026.03.18 14:50:55 +0530

PC:

Heard learned counsel for Petitioner.

We find this to be another case of blatant violation of the rule of law.

The Petitioner is a secured creditor, acting in accordance with the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Upon culmination of the process, by an order dated 12/01/2025, the competent Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act has passed an order for physical possession of the secured asset being taken and handed over

1 of 3

varsha

21-wp-14482-2025.doc

to the Petitioner. A Court Commissioner was appointed for the said purpose. Therefore, the said order was duly executed and possession of the secured asset was taken on 14/02/2025, and panchnama to that effect is placed on record at Exhibit-'B'.

Thereafter, on 09/05/2025, the secured asset was again encroached upon and tresspassed. In respect of the same, the Petitioner submitted a complaint before the Senior Police Inspector of Rabodi Police Station, Thane (West). It appears that no further action has been taken till date.

We find that secured creditors like the Petitioner herein are facing such difficulties repeatedly, as the possession of the secured asset itself takes a long time to be taken and after orders passed by the competent Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act have been duly executed, the secured asset is again encroached and tresspassed upon, in most cases by the borrowers and / or their representatives. This shows a complete breakdown of the rule of law and it cannot be permitted when it is brought to the notice of the writ Court.

In view of the above, we direct Respondent No. 3- Court Commissioner to issue notice for taking possession of the secured asset on 30th March 2026.

Respondent No. 4, Senior Police Inspector of Rabodi Police Station, Thane (West), shall provide adequate police assistance to Respondent No. 3 Court Commissioner, including providing lady constables for execution of the aforesaid direction of taking physical

2 of 3

varsha

21-wp-14482-2025.doc

possession of the secured asset on 30th March 2026. The police would be at liberty to use reasonable, proportionate and necessary force to ensure that the direction is complied with.

In the event, the direction issued by this Court is not complied with, the Respondent No. 4, Senior Police Inspector of Rabodi Police Station, Thane (West), shall remain personally present before this Court on the next date of hearing.

List under the caption for compliance on 2nd April 2026.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

3 of 3

varsha