Disposed

Mr Prasad Hrishchandra Mankame v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited and Others

DRT22 Apr 2026SA/371/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT dismissed an interim application seeking stay of possession. The court observed the applicant was not diligent in checking the property's mortgage status and noted the possession notice procedure involved the Tehsildar directing the Mandal Adhikari, though forcible possession required District Magistrate's order.

What did the court decide?

None granted; the interim application was disposed of without stay.

Mr Prasad Hrishchandra Mankame versus Piramal Capital and… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Before Harish Kumar Kaushik, I/c Presiding Officer DRT-III, Mumbai At: DRI- II, Mumbai

¶2

I.A. No.1379 of 2026

¶3

In Securitisation Application No.371 of 2025

¶4

Sr. No.9 Decided on : 22.04.2026

¶5

Mr Prasad Hrishchandra Mankame

¶6

...APPLICANT/s

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited And ...RESPONDENT/s Others

¶9

Argued By –

¶10

Mr Nandkumar C. and Ms Chanchal Chaudhary, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶11

Mr R. L. Motwani, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶12

None for other Respondents.

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This order of mine shall dispose of the Interim Application bearing I.A. No.1379 of 2026.

¶15

By way of I.A. No.1379 of 2026, the Applicant prays for stay of possession of property being Flat No.A-2302, 23^rd Floor, A-Wing, Sai Crystals CHS Ltd., and Plot No.45, 52 & 52A, Sector 35D, Sector 35D, Kharghar, Tal. Panvel Dist. Raigad (for short, ‘the said property’) scheduled on 23.04.2026.

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submitted that Applicant is a neither the borrower, mortgagor or guarantor. The Applicant is a Bonafide purchaser who purchased the property for a consideration of Rs.1 crore on 06.04.2019 from Mr Subodh More. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant also submitted that as per notice of physical possession dated 13.03.2026, Mandal Adhikar (Circle Officer) is authorised which cannot be done because of Tehsildar was authorised by competent authority and Tehsildar cannot further re-delegate the power.

¶18

Ld. Advocate for Respondent opposed and submitted that the property was already mortgaged with the Respondent by the borrower, Mr Subodh More and the Applicant was not due diligent at the time of so-called purchased. The son of Applicant has also filed police complaint against the seller/borrower. The civil suit filed by the Applicant which is already been dismissed. Ld. Advocate further submitted that in this case, the possession notice dated 13.03.2026 was issued by the Tehsildar instructing the borrower to handover the said property to the Mandal Adhirkari (Circle Officer). Hence, prayers should be rejected.

¶19

Heard Ld. Advocates for the parties. Perused the record.

¶20

It is evident from the arguments of Ld. Advocates on record that the property was already mortgaged by the borrower who sold the property to the present Applicant. The Applicant was not due diligent before purchase of the property which was already

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

mortgaged as secured assets to the Respondent No.1. The possession notice is given by Tehsildar not by the Mandal Adhikari (Circle Officer). However, the Mandal Adhikari cannot take forcible possession of the said property as per direction of Tehsildar because Tehsildar can only proceed to take possession as per order of District Magistrate Raigad.

¶23

With this observation, the present I.A. No.1379 of 2026 is disposed of accordingly

¶24

Sd/(HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK) I/c PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-III, MUMBAI At: DRT-II, Mumbai

¶25

Tejas

¶26

Page 3 of 3

Mr Prasad Hrishchandra Mankame v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Prasad Hrishchandra Mankame v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

1.Ajay Chandrakant Madane versus Bank of Maharashtra

Shri Nilesh Hansraj Gupta versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Samra versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Ms Vrajilal Hargovind versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Gourmet Foods and Beverages versus Smfg India Credit Company Limited

Bharati Deepaksingh Pardeshi versus State Bank of India