An interim application challenging the respondent bank's physical possession of secured properties was rejected. The tribunal held that dues exceeded Rs.10 crores, the applicants failed to deposit substantial amounts, and no prima facie case or balance of convenience existed in their favor.
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.
Before Harish Kumar Kaushik, I/c Presiding Officer DRT-III, Mumbai At: DRT-II Mumbai
I.A. No. 1137 of 2026 In Securitisation Application No.169 of 2026
Sr. No.6 Decided on : 07.04.2026
Deshmukh Solar Energy Pvt Ltd. & Ors.
...APPLICANT/s
V/s.
Bank of India & Anr.
...RESPONDENT/s
Argued By –
Mr Aniket Nangre, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr Atul Jadhav, Advocate for Respondents.
O R D E R
Page 1 of 3
Dist. Nashik, Survey No. 670/A/2, Plot Nos.205 + 206, area 1150.00 sq. m. (650.00 sq. m. + 500.00 sq. m. and area 349.26 sq. m.), being the property as per four boundaries recorded in the rights records (for short, “the said properties”) scheduled on 08.04.2026.
Page 2 of 3
property in possession with the bank. So, there is no prima facie case in favour of the Applicants. Hence, prayers should be rejected.
Sd/(HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK)
Radhika
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there exists a prima facie case and balance of convenience to grant a stay on physical possession of secured properties despite adequate security coverage.
Whether an interim stay should be granted to restrain the respondent Bank from taking physical possession of residential/commercial properties.
Deshmukh Solar Energy Pvt Ltd. & Ors.
Bank of India & Anr.
Harish Kumar Kaushik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
