Union Bank of India v. State of Maharashtra
Case brief
What is this about?
Securitisation Act 2002 physical possession of secured asset; execution of Competent Magistrate's order dated 06.10.2022; Tahsildar Nashik directed to take possession on 23.04.2026; police assistance Senior Inspector Panchwati Police Station Nashik City; lady constables; reasonable proportionate necessary force; Union Bank of India v State of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court writ petition 3936 of 2026; compliance listing 28.04.2026; petitioner to pay police assistance charges.
What did the court decide?
Leave to add Tahsildar, Nashik as party respondent No.5 (amendment forthwith); direction to respondent No.5 - Tahsildar, Nashik to take physical possession of the secured asset on 23.04.2026 in terms of the Competent Magistrate's order dated 06.10.2022, issuing necessary notices; direction to respondent No.4 - Senior Inspector of Police, Panchwati Police Station, Nashik City to provide proper police assistance with adequate personnel including lady constables, using reasonable, proportionate and necessary force; personal presence of respondents 4 and 5 in Court on next listing if direction not complied with; compliance listing on 28.04.2026; petitioner to pay charges for police assistance.