Saurashtra Gramin Bank Branch office Padana vs Hasmukh Nemchand shah — 20/2016
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 002. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 07th April 2026.
RCS - REGULAR CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJJM030006762016
Filing Number
20/2016
Filing Date
11-04-2016
Registration No
20/2016
Registration Date
11-04-2016
Court
TALUKA COURT, LALPUR
Judge
2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
07th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Saurashtra Gramin Bank Branch office Padana
Adv. K.P.JOSHI
Respondent(s)
Hasmukh Nemchand shah
Shantilal Nemchand Shah
Adv. H.D.JOSHI
Praful Nemchand Shah
Adv. H.D.JOSHI
Shailesh Nemchand Shah
Adv. H.D.JOSHI
Hearing History
Judge: 2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FINAL ARGUMENTS
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 28-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 23-02-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 10-02-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: The court dismissed the bank's claim against the defendants. The Saurashtra Gramin Bank sought recovery of Rs. 1,07,246.46 from the defendants, alleging they defaulted on an agricultural loan of Rs. 75,000 disbursed on April 17, 2013, at 12% annual interest. However, the court found that the bank failed to substantiate its case through credible evidence, and the power of attorney relied upon by the bank was dated 2007 rather than matching the 2013 loan period, creating discrepancies that undermined the bank's claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: The court dismissed the bank's claim against the defendants. The Saurashtra Gramin Bank sought recovery of Rs. 1,07,246.46 from the defendants, alleging they defaulted on an agricultural loan of Rs. 75,000 disbursed on April 17, 2013, at 12% annual interest. However, the court found that the bank failed to substantiate its case through credible evidence, and the power of attorney relied upon by the bank was dated 2007 rather than matching the 2013 loan period, creating discrepancies that undermined the bank's claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts