BANK OF BARODA SUKHPAR BRANCH T/H BRANCH MANAGER RAJNIKANT MANILAL PARMAR vs ABBAS OSMAN SAJANVALA PROP.OF CHUNARI COLLECTION — 41/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Disposed: Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT on 23rd April 2026.
COMM CS - COMMERCIAL CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKT020048862025
Filing Number
41/2025
Filing Date
16-Jun-2025
Registration No
41/2025
Registration Date
16-Jun-2025
Court
CIVIL COURT BHUJ
Judge
1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
Decision Date
23-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--EX-PARTE JUDGEMENT
Last updated 21-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BANK OF BARODA SUKHPAR BRANCH T/H BRANCH MANAGER RAJNIKANT MANILAL PARMAR
Adv. P M MAHESHWARI
Respondent(s)
-
1.ABBAS OSMAN SAJANVALA PROP.OF CHUNARI COLLECTION
-
2.HARUN HUSEN BHATTI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
The Principal Senior Civil Judge of Bhuj-Kachchh allowed Bank of Baroda's summary judgment suit against the defendants and ordered recovery of Rs. 5,21,064.80 with 9% per annum interest from the filing date until realization. The court found that since the defendants failed to file a written statement despite service of summons and the plaintiff's documentary evidence (loan agreement, sanction letters, hypothecation agreement, etc.) established the contractual liability, summary judgment was appropriate under the Commercial Court Act without requiring oral evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
10-Apr-2026
Hearing
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Admission/Urgent Hearing
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
20-Dec-2025
Reply
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
18-Oct-2025
Summons - Notice
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
16-Sep-2025
Summons - Notice
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
24-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Jun-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 41/2025
The Principal Senior Civil Judge of Bhuj-Kachchh allowed Bank of Baroda's summary judgment suit against the defendants and ordered recovery of Rs. 5,21,064.80 with 9% per annum interest from the filing date until realization. The court found that since the defendants failed to file a written statement despite service of summons and the plaintiff's documentary evidence (loan agreement, sanction letters, hypothecation agreement, etc.) established the contractual liability, summary judgment was appropriate under the Commercial Court Act without requiring oral evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts