On September 23, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued an interim order in a case between Chaitanya Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Auxilo Finserve Pvt. Ltd. A Bench consisting of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the case and addressed issues pertaining both to violation of court directions and the continuation of the loan recovery process conducted by the secured creditor.

The litigation arises out of an order dated 27 June 2025 made by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 10889 of 2024. The petitioners, who operate a school in Kolhapur district, had been restrained in November and December 2024 by previous orders of the High Court from admitting new students. Nonetheless, in contravention of these restraints, admissions were issued to Class IV during the academic year 2025–26, resulting in apprehensions of intentional non-compliance.

Currently, the school has 376 students from Classes IV to XII. The State of Maharashtra notified the Court that five nearby schools were ready and available to provide place for these children if required.

   

While observing that the petitioners had evidently violated binding High Court orders, the Supreme Court did not immediately proceed with contempt proceedings. Rather, the Court first emphasized protecting students' interests and ensuring order in the process of loan recovery under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) regime.

Respondent Auxilo Finserve Pvt. Ltd., being the secured creditor, can go ahead with the valuation and auction of the school property as per the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The creditor should furnish valuation reports to the petitioners and strictly adhere to requirements under law, such as Rule 9.

In case of hindrance by the petitioners, the creditor can make a request for police protection from Kurundwad Police Station.

The Administrator shall deal with the finances of the school and make decisions in the interest of students, without converting the nature of the secured asset.

Aside from the above, the Court was apprised of FIR No. 0338/2025 being lodged against the petitioners under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The Court made it clear that the investigation at large would continue independently without prejudice to the pendency of the instant special leave petition.

The Bench ordered the case to be heard again after four months before a regular bench with the clarification that the case will not be dealt with as part-heard before them.