AXIS BANK LIMITED vs THAKAR PRAKASHKUMAR BHIKHALAL — 469/2025
Case under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Section 14. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 07th March 2026.
CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - J
CNR: GJMH060035432025
Filing Number
469/2025
Filing Date
28-Nov-2025
Registration No
469/2025
Registration Date
28-Nov-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, VISNAGAR
Judge
3-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
Decision Date
07-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT
Last updated 21-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.AXIS BANK LIMITED
Adv. M V PARECHA
Respondent(s)
-
1.THAKAR PRAKASHKUMAR BHIKHALAL
-
2.THAKAR MINABEN
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-Mar-2026
Order
The court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to comply with the Court Commissioner's fee order and did not pursue further proceedings as required. The court ruled that due to the petitioner's negligence and non-compliance, the matter could not proceed, warranting dismissal of the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
06-Mar-2026
Final Hearing
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
25-Feb-2026
Process To Opponent
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
16-Feb-2026
Process To Opponent
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
10-Feb-2026
Process To Opponent
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
29-Jan-2026
Process To Opponent
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
12-Jan-2026
Process To Opponent
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
02-Jan-2026
Process To Opponent
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
19-Dec-2025
Process To Opponent
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
17-Dec-2025
Process To Opponent
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
11-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 469/2025
The court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to comply with the Court Commissioner's fee order and did not pursue further proceedings as required. The court ruled that due to the petitioner's negligence and non-compliance, the matter could not proceed, warranting dismissal of the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts