STATE BANK OF INDIA KHORASA THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER vs RAMSHIBHAI KANABHAI NANDANIYA — 1/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 38. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 17th March 2026.
EXE R - EXECUTION PETITION - REGULAR
CNR: GJJN060000452024
Filing Number
1/2024
Filing Date
08-01-2024
Registration No
1/2024
Registration Date
08-01-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, MALIA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE BANK OF INDIA KHORASA THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER
Adv. M S GOHEL
Respondent(s)
RAMSHIBHAI KANABHAI NANDANIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT
WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT
WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT
WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 14-03-2026 | WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT |
| 21-02-2026 | WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT |
| 04-02-2026 | WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court dismissed both recovery cases (Reg. Civ. Suit 1/2024 and 5/2024) filed by State Bank of India against Ramshibhai Kanabhai Nandaniya due to the bank's gross misconduct and non-compliance with court orders. The bank's branch manager failed to appear despite multiple summons over seven months, instructed his legal counsel to provide evasive responses, and cited work commitments as a reason for non-attendance, demonstrating contempt of court. The court found the bank's conduct serious enough to warrant dismissal of both suits, release of attached property, and initiation of contempt proceedings against the branch manager. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court dismissed both recovery cases (Reg. Civ. Suit 1/2024 and 5/2024) filed by State Bank of India against Ramshibhai Kanabhai Nandaniya due to the bank's gross misconduct and non-compliance with court orders. The bank's branch manager failed to appear despite multiple summons over seven months, instructed his legal counsel to provide evasive responses, and cited work commitments as a reason for non-attendance, demonstrating contempt of court. The court found the bank's conduct serious enough to warrant dismissal of both suits, release of attached property, and initiation of contempt proceedings against the branch manager. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts