BANK OF BARODA vs VIPULKUMAR RAMESH CHANDRA MISTRY — 857/2025

Case under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Section 14. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 11th March 2026.

CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC

CNR: GJAH090062032025

Case disposed

Filing Number

857/2025

Filing Date

23-12-2025

Registration No

857/2025

Registration Date

23-12-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, SANAND

Judge

5-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Decision Date

11th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002 Section 14

Petitioner(s)

BANK OF BARODA

Adv. D M DESAI

Respondent(s)

VIPULKUMAR RAMESH CHANDRA MISTRY

Mrs BINA BIMALBHAI MISTRY

Hearing History

Judge: 5-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

11-03-2026

Disposed

20-02-2026

URGENT HEARING

06-02-2026

URGENT HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

11-03-2026
ORDER

Summary The court granted Bank of Baroda's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, authorizing it to take physical possession of a mortgaged residential property (Flat No. 406, 62.71 Sq. Mtrs.) in Ahmedabad from borrowers Vipulkumar Mistry and Bina Mistry who defaulted on a ₹8,10,000 housing loan. The court found the bank had satisfied all statutory requirements, including prior demand notice and NPA classification, and appointed a Court Commissioner to execute the possession with police assistance and court-authorized force if necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court granted Bank of Baroda's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, authorizing it to take physical possession of a mortgaged residential property (Flat No. 406, 62.71 Sq. Mtrs.) in Ahmedabad from borrowers Vipulkumar Mistry and Bina Mistry who defaulted on a ₹8,10,000 housing loan. The court found the bank had satisfied all statutory requirements, including prior demand notice and NPA classification, and appointed a Court Commissioner to execute the possession with police assistance and court-authorized force if necessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, SANAND All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case