Khush Housing Finance Private Ltd Throu. Deepak S Ambadaskar v. The State Of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader And ORS

8-wp-4343-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4343 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2932 OF 2026 Khush Housing Finance Private Limited ...

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Others ...

Respondents VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Mr. Sanjay Anabhawane a/w. Mr. Pranay Juvekar i/b. Ms. Medha Rane, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Shadab Jan a/w. Mr. Akshit Kothari and Mr. Jay Rajpopat, for the Interveners.

Mr. O.A. Chandurkar a/w. Smt. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGPs, for the State. VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2026.04.27 14:51:20 +0530

CORAM

: MANISH PITALE AND SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

DATE : 27th APRIL, 2026 P.C. :

1.

In pursuance to an order dated 16th April, 2026 passed by this Court, on 24th April, 2026 the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) passed detailed orders in three interlocutory applications filed in three appeals before the DRAT. By the said orders, the interlocutory applications were allowed and interim reliefs were granted. It is relevant to note that two of the three pending appeals before DRAT have been filed by the flat purchasers and the remaining appeal has been filed by the society. The DRAT has passed two orders. One is a common order dated 24th April, 2026 allowing I.A. Diary No. 449 of 2026 (stay) in Misc. Appeal Diary No. 344 of 2026 and I.A. Diary No. 429 of 2026 (stay) in Misc. Appeal Diary No. 341 of 2026. The Vishal Parekar ....1

8-wp-4343-2026.doc other is an order dated 24th April, 2026 passed in I.A. Diary No. 448 of 2026 (stay) in Misc. Appeal Diary No. 447 of 2026. 2.

Copies of the said orders tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner (secured creditor) are taken on record and marked "X" and "Y" for identification.

3.

Since interim reliefs have been granted by DRAT, the petitioner would be able to proceed further under the provision of Securitisation Act depending on the fate of the pending appeals before the DRAT. 4.

In view of the above no further orders are necessary in this Writ Petition and it is disposed of as such.

5.

It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the matter and the rights and contentions of the rival parties are kept open.

6.

Needless to say, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the aforementioned orders passed by the DRAT allowing the interlocutory applications filed by the applicants therein, in accordance with law. 7.

Pending applications if any in this Writ Petition also stand disposed of. (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Vishal Parekar ....2