TRUHOME FINANCE LIMITED AUTHORIZED OFFICER SAGAR KIRITBHAI GALANI vs VASAVA SUBHASHBHAI — 2462/2025
Case under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Section 14. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 17th March 2026.
CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC
CNR: GJSR120068192025
Filing Number
2462/2025
Filing Date
05-Dec-2025
Registration No
2462/2025
Registration Date
05-Dec-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, KATHOR
Judge
3-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
Decision Date
17-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
Last updated 16-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.TRUHOME FINANCE LIMITED AUTHORIZED OFFICER SAGAR KIRITBHAI GALANI
Adv. M M BHATT
Respondent(s)
-
1.VASAVA SUBHASHBHAI
-
2.VASAVA SARITABEN SUBHSHBHAI
-
3.VASAVA ASHISHBHAI SUBHASHBHAI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathor granted Truhome Finance Limited's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to take possession of a mortgaged property (Swastik Residency plot in Surat) from defaulting borrowers. The court found that the finance company satisfied all statutory requirements, including service of a 60-day demand notice, and appointed a Court Commissioner to execute the possession order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
11-Mar-2026
Final Hearing
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
09-Mar-2026
Final Hearing
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
31-Jan-2026
Final Hearing
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
26-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 2462/2025
Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathor granted Truhome Finance Limited's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to take possession of a mortgaged property (Swastik Residency plot in Surat) from defaulting borrowers. The court found that the finance company satisfied all statutory requirements, including service of a 60-day demand notice, and appointed a Court Commissioner to execute the possession order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts