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.

Case disposed

CRMA J - CRIMI MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC

CNR: GJKH020007522026

Filing Number

107/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

107/2026

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.BHARATSINH AMARSINH SOLANKI

  2. 2.SHITALBEN SOLANKI

  3. 3.AMBALAL JENAJI SOLANKI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    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.

  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. 107/2026

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case