Anand Rajesham Mittapelli vs Capri Global Capital Limited

In this petition on 6th March 2026, we had passed an order making some observations about the manner in which the DRT had passed orders when notices were issued by the Court Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset in pursuance of the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002. We noted the submission made on behalf of the Petitioners that on every occasion that an Interim Application was moved before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai (DRT) in pending Securitisation Application No. 43 of 2015, specific amounts were directed to be deposited, subject to which, notices issued for taking physical possession were deferred.

¶13

1 of 4

¶14

varsha

¶15

501-WP-48-2026.doc

¶16

It was submitted that in the process, the Petitioners deposited amount of Rs. 9.5 lakh in total, and yet the Respondents have been intermittently activating such process of taking physical possession of the secured asset and in that light, this Court may consider passing urgent interim order in the Writ Petition.

¶17

The urgency was based on a recent notice dated 24/02/2026 issued by the Court Commissioner for execution of warrant of possession, specifying the date of the execution of warrant as 11/03/2026.

¶18

When we saw that there was no prayer in the Writ Petition pertaining to the said notice, we permitted the Petitioners to amend the Writ Petition and directed listing of the Writ Petition yesterday i.e. 09/03/2026, High on Board.

¶19

The petition could not reach for hearing and hence in the morning today an urgent mentioning was made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, stating that the amendment as directed by this Court had been carried out and in that light we directed the Writ Petition to be taken up for production at 3:00p.m.

¶20

Before we could consider the rival submissions, the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that simultaneously the Petitioners also filed an interim application in pending Securitisation Application No. 43 of 2015 yesterday for similar prayer of restraining the respondent no. 2 from taking physical possession of the property. It is submitted that even a copy of the application was not furnished to the Respondents and it is only when the learned counsel for the

2 of 4

varsha

501-WP-48-2026.doc

Respondents was in the process of checking the listing of other matters before the DRT that it came to light that such an interim application was filed by the Petitioners and that it was listed today at Sr. No. 77 before the DRT and that now it is listed tomorrow.

¶25

We find that the Petitioners are riding two horses at the same time, which cannot be permitted. Even otherwise, as regards the grievance of the Petitioners they do have an alternative remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (DRAT) but we were inclined to show some indulgence by entertaining this Writ Petition in the light of the circumstances brought to our notice. But since the Petitioners themselves have chosen to knock the doors of the DRT for virtually the same reliefs as they have specifically referred to possession warrant likely be executed on 11/03/2026 in the application filed yesterday i.e. 09/03/2026 before the DRT, we are no longer inclined to show any further indulgence to the Petitioners.

¶26

Nonetheless, the urgency of the matter cannot be disputed and since the Petitioners have already moved the DRT in the said application filed yesterday, we propose to issue appropriate directions to the DRT for consideration of ad-interim / interim relief.

¶27

9. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶28

However, we direct the Debt Recovery Tribunal- III Mumbai (presently In-charge, DRT-1) to positively take up the interim application filed by the Petitioners yesterday i.e. 09/03/2026 in pending Securitisation Application No. 43 of 2015 for consideration of the ad interim / interim relief tomorrow (11/03/2026).

3 of 4

varsha

501-WP-48-2026.doc

The DRT is directed to take up the application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law tomorrow itself, considering that possession warrant is sought to be executed tomorrow by the Respondents.

¶33

The learned counsel for the Respondents, on instructions, makes a statement that till the DRT takes up the aforesaid interim application and passes any order thereon tomorrow, the notice dated 24/02/2025 will not be acted upon.

¶34

The Petitioners are at liberty to make all the submissions before the DRT, including their claim that rate of interest was wrongly modified by the Respondents.

¶35

Equally, the Respondents are entitled to refute the same.

¶36

With these observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶37

The DRT shall also make an endeavour to ensure that pleadings in the securitisation application are completed at the earliest and that the securitisation application itself is taken up and disposed of expeditiously.

¶38

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)

¶39

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶40

4 of 4

¶41

varsha

Anand Rajesham Mittapelli v. Capri Global Capital Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Rajesham Mittapelli v. Capri Global Capital Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramdas Dnyanoba Buchade vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Ministry of Revenue and Forest and Ors.

Iifl Home Finance Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Kalyan Gas Services through D. M. Suchak vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors.

Aditya Yogesh Dhamdhere vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Department of Industries Energy and Labour and Ors.

Iifl Home Finance Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra Thro. Assi. Govt. Pleader

Dcb Bank Ltd. vs Tara Pandurang Kulkarni