BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, NAVSARI BRANCH THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER RAJESH JOSHI vs NARESHBHAI ILLANNA SAGOLU — 1624/2025

Case under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Section 14,. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

CRMA J - CRIMINALMISC. APPLICATION-JMFC

CNR: GJNV020124462025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1624/2025

Filing Date

14-11-2025

Registration No

1624/2025

Registration Date

14-11-2025

Court

CIVIL COURT, NAVSARI

Judge

2-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

Decision Date

24th March 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)

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, NAVSARI BRANCH THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER RAJESH JOSHI

Adv. D K KHOIWAL

Respondent(s)

NARESHBHAI ILLANNA SAGOLU

JIGNESHKUMAR V. RAJYAGOR

Hearing History

Judge: 2-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

24-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

NOTICE TO OPPONENTS

28-02-2026

NOTICE TO OPPONENTS

25-02-2026

NOTICE TO OPPONENTS

21-02-2026

NOTICE TO OPPONENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

24-03-2026
ORDER

Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Navsari approved the secured creditor's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of a secured property (Plot No. 22, Samir Garden, Navsari) from a defaulting borrower. The court held that the magistrate has limited jurisdictional scope under Section 14 and cannot adjudicate disputes regarding whether assets are properly secured—those determinations fall to the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Navsari approved the secured creditor's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of a secured property (Plot No. 22, Samir Garden, Navsari) from a defaulting borrower. The court held that the magistrate has limited jurisdictional scope under Section 14 and cannot adjudicate disputes regarding whether assets are properly secured—those determinations fall to the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL COURT, NAVSARI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case