Shriram Finance Ltd v. Hambir Madhukar Pawar

2026:BHC-AUG:19191 1 29 WP 4134-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 29 WRIT PETITION NO. 4134 OF 2026 SHRIRAM FINANCE LTD

VERSUS

HAMBIR MADHUKAR PAWAR ...

Mr. Vinod Y. Bhide (through V.C.) - Advocate for Petitioner ...

CORAM

: S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

DATE :

20.04.2026 PER COURT :

1.

The petitioner has filed Review Application No.126 of 2023 in Revision Petition No.1977 of 2016 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. Along with review application, petitioner had preferred an application for stay to order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahilyanagar. The learned Presiding Member of National Commission issued notice in review application and granted stay to execution of impugned order, subject to condition that petitioner furnishes a Bank Guarantee of Rs.1,85,30,000/- in favour of non-applicant within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of order.

2.

Learned Counsel - Mr. V.Y. Bhide for petitioner submits that direction to furnish a Bank Guarantee of Rs.1,85,30,000/- is unwarranted

2 29 WP 4134-2026.odt having regard to valuation of the machines which are subject matter of the dispute.

3.

This Court has considered submissions. The order impugned before this Court is passed by National Commission. A perusal of order passed in original complaint that was filed before District Forum indicates that, apart from other reliefs, petitioner has been directed to hand over machines in question to complainant and to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per day from 20.11.2024 till handing over of machines. The dispute pertains to high-value machinery.

4.

The National Commission, upon considering overall circumstances of case, imposed condition of furnishing a Bank Guarantee of Rs.1,85,30,000/- for grant of stay to execution. Such a condition, being in nature of an interim arrangement to safeguard interests of the parties, cannot be said to be prejudicial to petitioner. 5.

This Court does not find any reason to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in present writ petition.

6.

In result, writ petition stands rejected.

7.

At this stage, learned Counsel - Mr. V.Y. Bhide seeks extension of time to furnish Bank Guarantee in terms of impugned order. 8.

Considering the facts and difficulty expressed, time for furnishing

3 29 WP 4134-2026.odt the Bank Guarantee is extended by a further period of two (2) weeks from today.

9.

Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [ S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR ] JUDGE Pooja Kale/