KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD., Represented by its Authorized Signatory Sri. Vinod Barimani vs Krishnappa H — 188/2025
Case under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act Section U/Sec14. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED/ GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 13th March 2026.
Crl.Misc. - Criminal MISC.CASES
CNR: KARN020016532025
e-Filing Number
09-10-2025
Filing Number
188/2025
Filing Date
18-10-2025
Registration No
188/2025
Registration Date
18-10-2025
Court
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARA
Judge
105-PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED/ GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
FIR Details
Police Station
RAMANAGAR TOWN PS
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD., Represented by its Authorized Signatory Sri. Vinod Barimani
Adv. S R Murthy
Respondent(s)
Krishnappa H
Sujatha G N
Hearing History
Judge: 105-PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM
Disposed
ORDERS
ARGUMENT
EXECUTION
EXECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-02-2026 | ORDERS |
| 22-01-2026 | ARGUMENT |
| 16-12-2025 | EXECUTION |
| 18-10-2025 | EXECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Krishnappa H and Sujatha G N (2025) The court granted Kotak Mahindra Bank's petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, entitling it to take physical possession of a mortgaged property in Ramanagara District. The respondents defaulted on a Rs. 5 lakh loan, leaving an outstanding balance of Rs. 5,02,328.63, classified as a Non-Performing Asset. The court appointed an advocate as Court Commissioner to execute the possession order with police assistance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Krishnappa H and Sujatha G N (2025) The court granted Kotak Mahindra Bank's petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, entitling it to take physical possession of a mortgaged property in Ramanagara District. The respondents defaulted on a Rs. 5 lakh loan, leaving an outstanding balance of Rs. 5,02,328.63, classified as a Non-Performing Asset. The court appointed an advocate as Court Commissioner to execute the possession order with police assistance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts