HINDUJA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED AUTHORIZED OFFICER NITIN SAMUDRE vs BHALARAM THAPA — 125/2026

Case under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Section 14. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC

CNR: GJSR120002692026

Filing Number

125/2026

Filing Date

31-Jan-2026

Registration No

125/2026

Registration Date

31-Jan-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, KATHOR

Judge

2-Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

07-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 03-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Section 14

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HINDUJA HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED AUTHORIZED OFFICER NITIN SAMUDRE

    Adv. H D MORADIYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BHALARAM THAPA

  2. 2.MANJU THAPA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathor (Surat) granted Hinduja Housing Finance Limited's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of a mortgaged residential flat from borrowers Balaram Thapa and Manju Thapa. The court found the applicant satisfied all statutory requirements, including serving proper demand notice under Section 13(2) and compliance with affidavit provisions, and authorized a Court Commissioner to seize the secured asset within 90 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 31-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 125/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathor (Surat) granted Hinduja Housing Finance Limited's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of a mortgaged residential flat from borrowers Balaram Thapa and Manju Thapa. The court found the applicant satisfied all statutory requirements, including serving proper demand notice under Section 13(2) and compliance with affidavit provisions, and authorized a Court Commissioner to seize the secured asset within 90 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case