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.

Case disposed

CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC

CNR: GJAH090062032025

Filing Number

857/2025

Filing Date

23-Dec-2025

Registration No

857/2025

Registration Date

23-Dec-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, SANAND

Judge

5-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 15-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Section 14

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BANK OF BARODA

    Adv. D M DESAI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VIPULKUMAR RAMESH CHANDRA MISTRY

  2. 2.Mrs BINA BIMALBHAI MISTRY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    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.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 20-Feb-2026

    Urgent Hearing

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 06-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 23-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 857/2025

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case