HDFC BANK LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER VIHAR RAVINDRABHAI SHAH vs RAULJI JAYENDRASINH — 51/2026
Case under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Section 14. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 24th April 2026.
CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPL - JMFC
CNR: GJPM040002532026
Filing Number
51/2026
Filing Date
06-02-2026
Registration No
51/2026
Registration Date
06-02-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, HALOL
Judge
3-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
24th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
HDFC BANK LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER VIHAR RAVINDRABHAI SHAH
Adv. A T VARDHANI
Respondent(s)
RAULJI JAYENDRASINH
Hearing History
Judge: 3-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
PROCESS TO OPPONENT
PROCESS TO OPPONENT
PROCESS TO OPPONENT
PROCESS TO OPPONENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 15-04-2026 | PROCESS TO OPPONENT |
| 08-04-2026 | PROCESS TO OPPONENT |
| 13-03-2026 | PROCESS TO OPPONENT |
| 06-03-2026 | PROCESS TO OPPONENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate granted HDFC Bank's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of the mortgaged property (Unit-88, Safal Residency) after the borrower Raulji Jayendrasinh failed to repay an outstanding loan amount of Rs. 11,93,919/-. The court appointed a Court Commissioner to take possession with police assistance, finding that the bank had complied with statutory notice requirements and had no authority to adjudicate the merits of the dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate granted HDFC Bank's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of the mortgaged property (Unit-88, Safal Residency) after the borrower Raulji Jayendrasinh failed to repay an outstanding loan amount of Rs. 11,93,919/-. The court appointed a Court Commissioner to take possession with police assistance, finding that the bank had complied with statutory notice requirements and had no authority to adjudicate the merits of the dispute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts