Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited v. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Esplanade

18-wp-4392-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4392 OF 2026 Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited ..

Petitioner Vs The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Esplanade ..

Respondent ------------------- Mr. Charles De souza with Manaswi Agrawal and Pragati Gothi i/by Maraki Chamber, for Petitioner.

Mr. Tanu Bhatia, AGP, for Respondent No. 3/State. -------------------- Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:

2026.04.09 11:38:56 +0530

CORAM

:

MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD DATE :

8TH APRIL 2026.

PC:

1.

The Petitioner (secured creditor) has approached this Court for limited reliefs, seeking a direction to Respondent No.2 -Registrar of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai for issuing the Writ of Commission in compliance with order dated 25/07/2025 issued by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (Exhibit-A). 2.

We are surprised that for such a direction, the Petitioner is constrained to file this Writ Petition.

3.

As a matter of course, Respondent No.2 ought to immediately issue the Writ of Commission in pursuance of the said order dated 25/07/2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 4.

It is to be noted that this Court in the case of 'L and T Finance varsha

18-wp-4392-2026.doc Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors'1 issued detailed guidelines with regard to the manner in which applications under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act are to be dealt with and executed. 5.

A conjoint reading of clauses (a) and (b) of Paragraph No. 23 of the said judgment would show that such an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act is required to be disposed of by the competent Magistrate within 30 days of filing of the said application and every order passed on such an application has to be implemented /executed within four weeks of the order being passed. Unless the Writ of Commission is issued, it will not be possible to execute the order, much less be executed within the time frame of four weeks.

6.

Therefore, we find that failure on the part of Respondent No. 2 to issue the Writ of Commission is in the teeth of the said judgment of this Court.

7.

We find that Respondents herein are the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Registrar of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and that Respondent No.3 is the State of Maharashtra represented by learned AGP.

8.

Hence, Writ Petition can be disposed of at this stage itself. 9.

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing Respondent No. 2 to issue the Writ of Commission in terms of the order dated 25/07/2025 passed by Respondent No.1, within one week from today.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) 1 2023 SCC online Bom (931) varsha