IDFC FIRST BANK LTD vs BHARATSINH AMARSINH SOLANKI — 107/2026

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

CRMA J - CRIMI MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC

CNR: GJKH020007522026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

107/2026

Filing Date

17-02-2026

Registration No

107/2026

Registration Date

17-02-2026

Court

CIVIL COURT NADIAD

Judge

2-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE

Decision Date

18th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002 Section 14,

Petitioner(s)

IDFC FIRST BANK LTD

Adv. S K BHATT

Respondent(s)

BHARATSINH AMARSINH SOLANKI

SHITALBEN SOLANKI

AMBALAL JENAJI SOLANKI

Hearing History

Judge: 2-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE

18-04-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

PROCESS TO OPPONENT

Final Orders / Judgements

18-04-2026
ORDER

The Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed IDFC First Bank's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to take possession of an immovable property (Milkat No. 941 in Apruji village, Kheda district) that was pledged as security for a loan on which the borrower defaulted. The court appointed a Commissioner to take physical possession of the property after the bank issued a statutory demand notice and symbolic possession was already taken, finding that all procedural requirements under the Act were satisfied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed IDFC First Bank's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to take possession of an immovable property (Milkat No. 941 in Apruji village, Kheda district) that was pledged as security for a loan on which the borrower defaulted. The court appointed a Commissioner to take physical possession of the property after the bank issued a statutory demand notice and symbolic possession was already taken, finding that all procedural requirements under the Act were satisfied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL COURT NADIAD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case