STATE BANK OF INDIA KHORASA THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER vs LAXMIBEN MERAMANBHAI JOTAVA — 5/2024

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 38. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

EXE R - EXECUTION PETITION - REGULAR

CNR: GJJN060003772024

Filing Number

5/2024

Filing Date

18-Mar-2024

Registration No

5/2024

Registration Date

18-Mar-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, MALIA

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 38

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE BANK OF INDIA KHORASA THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER

    Adv. M S GOHEL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.LAXMIBEN MERAMANBHAI JOTAVA

  2. 2.MALDEBHAI MERAMANBHAI JOTAVA

  3. 3.NARANBHAI MERAMANBHAI JOTAVA

  4. 4.RAJIBEN MERAMANBHAI JOTAVA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court dismissed both recovery cases (Civil Suit 1/2024 and 5/2024) filed by State Bank of India against the respondents due to the bank's gross negligence and non-compliance with court orders. The court found that the bank's branch manager failed to appear despite multiple summons over seven months, provided evasive responses through counsel, and made false claims about employee unavailability, demonstrating contempt of court procedures. Additionally, the court noted procedural irregularities including improper notice to respondents and the bank's failure to pursue amicable settlement, warranting dismissal of both suits with directions to release any attached property and conduct asset examination transparently. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 14-Mar-2026

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 21-Feb-2026

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 04-Feb-2026

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 05-Jan-2026

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 13-Dec-2025

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 18-Nov-2025

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 18-Oct-2025

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 08-Oct-2025

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 02-Sep-2025

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 16-Jul-2025

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 10-Jun-2025

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 09-May-2025

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 02-Apr-2025

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 19-Feb-2025

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 21-Jan-2025

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 18-Dec-2024

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 18-Oct-2024

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 30-Aug-2024

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 02-Aug-2024

    Warrant Of Attachment

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 25-Jun-2024

    Show-Cause Notice To Judgement Debtor

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 10-May-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 18-Mar-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 5/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed both recovery cases (Civil Suit 1/2024 and 5/2024) filed by State Bank of India against the respondents due to the bank's gross negligence and non-compliance with court orders. The court found that the bank's branch manager failed to appear despite multiple summons over seven months, provided evasive responses through counsel, and made false claims about employee unavailability, demonstrating contempt of court procedures. Additionally, the court noted procedural irregularities including improper notice to respondents and the bank's failure to pursue amicable settlement, warranting dismissal of both suits with directions to release any attached property and conduct asset examination transparently. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case