EQUITAS SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD.AUTHORIZED OFFICER DEEPAK CHANDRAKANT PATEL vs SANTOSH VASANT TUKARAM TAHKARE — 161/2026
Case under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Section 14. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 13th March 2026.
CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC
CNR: GJSR120003722026
Filing Number
161/2026
Filing Date
09-02-2026
Registration No
161/2026
Registration Date
09-02-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, KATHOR
Judge
2-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
EQUITAS SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD.AUTHORIZED OFFICER DEEPAK CHANDRAKANT PATEL
Adv. G V VEKARIYA
Respondent(s)
SANTOSH VASANT TUKARAM TAHKARE
VAISHALI SANTOSH THAKARE
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kathor granted Equitas Small Finance Bank's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to take possession of a secured asset (Plot No. 163 in Swarg Residency, Surat) mortgaged by borrowers Santosh and Vaishali Thakare. The court found the bank satisfied all statutory requirements, including compliance with Section 13(2) notice procedures, and appointed a Court Commissioner to execute possession within 90 days upon deposit of Rs. 15,000 towards commissioner expenses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kathor granted Equitas Small Finance Bank's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to take possession of a secured asset (Plot No. 163 in Swarg Residency, Surat) mortgaged by borrowers Santosh and Vaishali Thakare. The court found the bank satisfied all statutory requirements, including compliance with Section 13(2) notice procedures, and appointed a Court Commissioner to execute possession within 90 days upon deposit of Rs. 15,000 towards commissioner expenses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts