IDFC FIRST BANK LTD vs SHARMA KRUNALKUMAR DINESHBHAI — 106/2026

Case under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Section 14. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 18th April 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA J - CRIMI MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC

CNR: GJKH020007512026

Filing Number

106/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

106/2026

Registration Date

17-Feb-2026

Court

CIVIL COURT NADIAD

Judge

2-Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

Decision Date

18-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.IDFC FIRST BANK LTD

    Adv. S K BHATT

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHARMA KRUNALKUMAR DINESHBHAI

  2. 2.SHARMA URVIBEN KRUNALKUMAR

  3. 3.VALAND DINESH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Nadiad allowed IDFC First Bank's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to take possession of a residential property in Kheda district after the borrowers defaulted on their loan and failed to comply with the 60-day demand notice. The court appointed a commissioner to take physical possession of the property with police assistance if necessary, direct the borrowers to hand over the asset, and file a detailed report. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 17-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 106/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Nadiad allowed IDFC First Bank's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to take possession of a residential property in Kheda district after the borrowers defaulted on their loan and failed to comply with the 60-day demand notice. The court appointed a commissioner to take physical possession of the property with police assistance if necessary, direct the borrowers to hand over the asset, and file a detailed report. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case