CAN FIN Homes Ltd Reptd by its Senior manager Sri Shiva V R vs Raju P — 55/2026
Case under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act Section U/Sec.14. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED/ GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 20th May 2026.
Crl.Misc. - Criminal MISC.CASES
CNR: KARN020002312026
Filing Number
55/2026
Filing Date
04-Feb-2026
Registration No
55/2026
Registration Date
05-Feb-2026
Court
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARA
Judge
105-Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And CJM
Decision Date
20-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED/ GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
Last updated 02-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.CAN FIN Homes Ltd Reptd by its Senior manager Sri Shiva V R
Adv. D Narayanswamy
Respondent(s)
-
1.Raju P
-
2.Bhavya
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
20-May-2026
OrdersView PDF
Case Summary: CAN FIN Homes Ltd v. Raju P and Bhavya (C.Mis.No.55/2026) The court granted CAN FIN Homes Ltd's petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to take physical possession of a mortgaged property. The respondents had defaulted on a Rs. 23 lakh loan secured against the property, leaving an outstanding balance of Rs. 25.62 lakh, classifying the account as a Non-Performing Asset. The court found the petitioner had complied with statutory requirements including demand notice issuance and possession notice publication. An advocate commissioner was appointed to take possession with police assistance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
20-May-2026
Disposed
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And CJM
-
15-Apr-2026
Orders
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And CJM
-
24-Mar-2026
Orders
Prl. Senior CIVIL Judge And CJM
-
11-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
04-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 55/2026
Case Summary: CAN FIN Homes Ltd v. Raju P and Bhavya (C.Mis.No.55/2026) The court granted CAN FIN Homes Ltd's petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to take physical possession of a mortgaged property. The respondents had defaulted on a Rs. 23 lakh loan secured against the property, leaving an outstanding balance of Rs. 25.62 lakh, classifying the account as a Non-Performing Asset. The court found the petitioner had complied with statutory requirements including demand notice issuance and possession notice publication. An advocate commissioner was appointed to take possession with police assistance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts