Case Note & Summary
The matter before the High Court of Bombay involved a writ petition and a contempt petition arising from the same factual matrix concerning enforcement of security interest under SARFAESI Act, 2002. The writ petitioner, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, was a secured creditor as assignee of ICICI Bank under a deed of assignment dated 31 December 2007. The original borrowers had defaulted on a credit facility, leading to classification of the account as NPA and issuance of a demand notice under Section 13(2) on 25 June 2009. The bank initiated measures under Section 13(4) and obtained an order from the District Magistrate, Thane, on 3 March 2010 under Section 14, directing the Tahsildar with police assistance to take possession of the secured asset, a flat in Golden Eagle Complex Co-operative Housing Society Limited. Despite the order, the Tahsildar and Senior Inspector of Police failed to take possession, and an occupant, Reshma Bhavesh Shah, along with her family, repeatedly obstructed the process. The bank made several attempts, including approaching the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2144 of 2023, which was disposed of on 22 February 2023 referring to an earlier order in L & T Finance Limited v. State of Maharashtra. A letter dated 24 October 2024 to the Tahsildar led to scheduling of possession on 22 May 2025, but obstruction continued. By order dated 14 July 2025, the High Court directed the Tahsildar and police to execute the Section 14 order within eight weeks, yet possession still could not be taken. On 23 September 2025, during a fresh attempt, the occupant approached the High Court, and on 24 September 2025, the court noted that she had already filed a Securitisation Application before the DRT under Section 17, directed her to exhaust that alternate remedy, recorded her counsel's undertaking that she would not obstruct if no interim relief was granted, and required the bank to give seven days' notice before taking possession. The present writ petition sought directions for execution of the possession order, while the contempt petition alleged disobedience. The court heard both sides and reserved judgment on 17 July 2026, pronouncing order on 21 August 2026. The provided text ends without recording the final operative directions.
Headnote
A) Securitisation - Enforcement of Security Interest - Section 13(2), Section 13(4), Section 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Secured creditor initiated recovery and possession proceedings after loan account became NPA; District Magistrate directed Tahsildar to take physical possession, but execution was repeatedly obstructed by the occupant; Bank approached High Court for directions to execute the Section 14 order - Court noted the chequered history and that possession could not be taken despite directions (Paras 4-9).
B) Securitisation - Alternate Remedy - Section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal - In an earlier writ petition by the occupant, the High Court directed that the occupant should exhaust the alternate remedy under Section 17, which she had already invoked, and recorded an undertaking that if no interim relief was granted, she would not obstruct possession (Para 10).
C) Contempt of Court - Willful Disobedience - Alleged obstruction of court-directed possession - Contempt petition was filed alleging disobedience or obstruction, arising from the same factual matrix; the matter was considered together with the writ petition (Paras 2, 6-9).
D) Civil Procedure - Undertaking to Court - Binding nature of statements made before High Court - A statement by counsel for the occupant that she would not obstruct taking of physical possession if DRT did not grant interim relief was accepted as an undertaking to the Court, and bank was directed to give seven days' notice before proceeding (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Tahsildar and police authorities failed to execute the Section 14 order dated 3 March 2010 despite court directions; whether repeated obstruction by occupant constitutes contempt and whether police should use force; whether occupant should be relegated to alternate remedy under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act; whether bank must give seven days' notice before taking possession based on undertaking
Final Decision
Not mentioned - the provided judgment text does not include the final operative direction; both petitions were heard together and the order was reserved on 17 July 2026 and pronounced on 21 August 2026, but the text ends before recording the final holding.
Law Points
- Secured creditor rights under SARFAESI Act
- 2002
- Section 13(2) demand notice
- Section 13(4) enforcement measures
- Section 14 order for possession
- Section 17 alternate remedy before DRT
- binding nature of undertaking to court
- obstruction of court-directed possession
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (08) 71
Writ Petition No. 7547 of 2026 (A.S.) with Contempt Petition (L) No. 35329 of 2025 (O.S.) with Interim Application No. 28679 of 2025 and Interim Application (L) No. 4872 of 2026 in Writ Petition No. 4960 of 2025
Manish Pitale, Shreeram V. Shirsat
2026:BHC-OS:18904-DB, CNR HCBM020353302025
Mathews Nedumpara, Hemali Kurne, Dayanand Hebballi, Sanjay Anabhawane, Medha Rane, Fatima Lakdawalla, Oduvil Mohandas, Farah Broacha, J.P. Kapadia, Tanu Bhatia, Soman
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7547 of 2026); Reshma Bhavesh Shah (Petitioner in Contempt Petition (L) No. 35329 of 2025)
State of Maharashtra and Others (Respondents in Writ Petition No. 7547 of 2026); Board of Directors of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Another (Respondents in Contempt Petition (L) No. 35329 of 2025)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking execution of order under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act and contempt petition alleging obstruction of possession proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner bank sought directions to Tahsildar and police to execute the possession order; contempt petitioner sought action against the bank for alleged disobedience.
Filing Reason
Failure of Tahsildar and police to take physical possession of secured asset due to repeated obstruction by the occupant.
Previous Decisions
District Magistrate order dated 3 March 2010 directed Tahsildar to take possession; High Court order dated 22 February 2023 disposed of earlier writ; High Court order dated 14 July 2025 directed execution within eight weeks; order dated 24 September 2025 directed alternate remedy and recorded undertaking.
Issues
Whether Tahsildar and police authorities failed to execute the Section 14 order dated 3 March 2010 despite court directions.
Whether Respondent No. 2's obstruction of possession proceedings constitutes contempt and whether police should use force to remove occupants.
Whether Respondent No. 2 should be relegated to alternate remedy under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act before DRT.
Whether bank is required to give seven days' notice before taking possession based on undertaking.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner bank argued it is secured creditor, loan account NPA, measures under SARFAESI initiated, possession order not executed due to obstructions and inaction by authorities.
Petitioner bank argued no stay from any court or tribunal, and Tahsildar/police failed to execute; Respondent No.2 has alternate remedy under Section 17.
Respondent No.2 previously agreed before High Court to raise all contentions before DRT and not obstruct if no interim relief; statement accepted as undertaking.
Petitioner bank contended that authorities failed to use police force and possibly yielded to political influence, leading to repeated failed attempts.
Ratio Decidendi
Not mentioned - final ratio not included in the provided judgment text.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7547 of 2026 is a secured creditor, an assignee of ICICI Bank (the Assignor Bank), by virtue of a Deed of Assignment dated 31st December 2007.
Since the issue involved in the Writ Petition No. 7547 of 2026 and Contempt Petition (L) No. 35329 of 2025 alongwith Interim Applications are arising out of the same factual matrix, both are being disposed of by a common order.
7] Mr. Soman, the learned Advocate appearing for the 1st Respondent Bank, has stated that since possession was not taken yesterday, a fresh notice would be issued by the 1st Respondent Bank to the Petitioner before they proceed to take physical possession of the Suit Property. Since this statement is made, we do not find any immediate threat to the Petitioner of being ousted from possession. We only
Procedural History
Loan granted by ICICI Bank to original borrowers; Deed of Assignment dated 31 December 2007 to Kotak Mahindra Bank. Account classified NPA; Demand Notice under Section 13(2) issued on 25 June 2009. Measures under Section 13(4) initiated. Section 14 application made; District Magistrate Thane order dated 3 March 2010 directed Tahsildar to take possession with police assistance. Police failed to take possession. In 2014, Respondent No.2 filed Securitisation Application before DRT-III Mumbai. No stay; Petitioner approached Tahsildar; filed Writ Petition No. 2144 of 2023; disposed of on 22 February 2023 referring to Writ Petition No. 15285 of 2022 (L & T Finance Limited v. State of Maharashtra). Letter dated 24 October 2024 to Tahsildar; possession scheduled on 22 May 2025; obstruction led to failure. High Court order dated 14 July 2025 directed execution within eight weeks; possession still obstructed. Fresh attempt on 23 September 2025; Respondent No.2 approached High Court; order dated 24 September 2025 directed alternate remedy under Section 17, required seven days' notice by bank, and recorded undertaking not to obstruct. Present Writ Petition No. 7547 of 2026 and Contempt Petition (L) No. 35329 of 2025 taken together; heard and reserved on 17 July 2026; pronounced on 21 August 2026.
Acts & Sections
- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: 13(2), 13(4), 14, 17
