DRT-2 Mumbai dismissed a securitisation application as a barred attempt to re-agitate issues already adjudicated on merits in a prior application (S.A. No.466 of 2025) involving the same applicant, respondents, premises, and cause of action.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.446 OF 2025
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI
PRESIDING OFFICER: HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.446 OF 2025
Date of Institution: 01.10.2025 Date of Decision: 21.11.2025
M/s. Durhomes Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Having address at 109, Embassy Center, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 through it authorized representative Mr. Abulaas Siddiqui
… Applicant
Versus
Page 1 of 5
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.446 OF 2025
APPEARANCES
| For the Applicant | : Mr Sidhart | h Samantaray and |
|---|---|---|
| Ms Supa Advocates |
rna Holamagi - |
|
| For Respondent No.1 | : Mr Rajesh | Nagori, Mr Vinay |
| Deshpande, and Ms Ane |
Ms Shobha Chavan ri Shah i/b M/s. V. |
|
| Deshpande | & Co. – Advocates | |
| For Respondent Nos.2 to 5 | None |
Final Order
Page 2 of 5
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.446 OF 2025
the validity of claim regarding valid charge and mortgage over the secured assets by the Respondent No.1.
Page 3 of 5
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.446 OF 2025
arising out of the same cause of action. The pleadings and material placed on record clearly shows that the Applicant had challenged the very same measures under Section 13(4) and Section 14 which from the subject matter of the said decided earlier Securitisation Application No.466 of 2025. (6) The Securitisation Application No.466 of 2025 was heard at length, all issues were considered and a reasoned speaking order on merits is pronounced separately by this Tribunal today i.e. 21.11.2025. The said Securitisation Application has been decided on merits after considering all the issues, factual and legal raised by both the parties. That order is squarely convers the controversy raised in this S.A. No.446 of 2025. The cause of action, the grievance, the challenge to measures taken under Section 14 and the factual basis remain identical except fact of challenging charge and mortgage over the secured assets of Respondent No.1.
Page 4 of 5
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.446 OF 2025
the same parties, raising the same issues arising from the same cause of action. Once, this Tribunal has examined the legality of the measures undertaken by the secured creditor in respect of the said property and has delivered a reasoned order on merit, it is not open to the same Applicant to maintain another Securitisation Application on the same set of facts.
Sd/-
(Harish Kumar Kaushik) Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai
Radhika
Page 5 of 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an applicant is debarred from filing a new securitisation application challenging the same measures and cause of action already decided on merits in a previous application between identical pa
Whether Order 2 Rule 2 CPC precludes re-agitation of omitted or relinquished claims regarding the validity of a charge and mortgage.
Whether maintaining a second application on the same set of facts and issues violates the principle against multiple proceedings by a litigant.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Durhomes Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Reliance Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.
Mr Narendra Rajesh Shukla
M/s Purvi Metals Pvt. Ltd.
Mr Rangbahadur Sahjeet Singh
Mr. Brijesh Pratap Rangbahadur Singh
HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
