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
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2462/2025
Filing Date
05-12-2025
Registration No
2462/2025
Registration Date
05-12-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, KATHOR
Judge
3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
TRUHOME FINANCE LIMITED AUTHORIZED OFFICER SAGAR KIRITBHAI GALANI
Adv. M M BHATT
Respondent(s)
VASAVA SUBHASHBHAI
VASAVA SARITABEN SUBHSHBHAI
VASAVA ASHISHBHAI SUBHASHBHAI
Hearing History
Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
FINAL HEARING
FINAL HEARING
FINAL HEARING
FINAL HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 11-03-2026 | FINAL HEARING | |
| 09-03-2026 | FINAL HEARING | |
| 31-01-2026 | FINAL HEARING | |
| 26-12-2025 | FINAL HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts