Thomas Rockey vs SBI cards and payment Services limited — 200001/2025

Case under --- Section Section7. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

OP(Insolvency) - ORIGINAL PETITION (INSOLVENCY)

CNR: KLAL030000262025

e-Filing Number

27-01-2025

Filing Number

22/2025

Filing Date

28-Jan-2025

Registration No

200001/2025

Registration Date

28-Jan-2025

Court

Sub Court Alappuzha

Judge

1-Sub Judge, Alappuzha

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT

Last updated 25-May-2026

Acts & Sections

--- Section Section7

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Thomas Rockey

    Adv. Sethuram Dharmapalan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SBI cards and payment Services limited

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Subordinate Judge at Alappuzha dismissed Thomas Rockey's insolvency petition (OP No. 01/2025) for default on March 12, 2026, as the petitioner failed to appear in court and take further steps despite repeated directions. The respondent banks were represented, but the petitioner's absence and lack of prosecution led to the dismissal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  4. 31-Jan-2026

    call on

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  5. 03-Jan-2026

    For Steps

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  6. 11-Dec-2025

    For Steps

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  7. 16-Sep-2025

    Return of notice

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  8. 23-Jul-2025

    Declared Holidays

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  9. 23-Jun-2025

    Return of notice

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  10. 09-Apr-2025

    call on

    Sub Judge, Alappuzha

  11. 28-Jan-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  12. 28-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 200001/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Subordinate Judge at Alappuzha dismissed Thomas Rockey's insolvency petition (OP No. 01/2025) for default on March 12, 2026, as the petitioner failed to appear in court and take further steps despite repeated directions. The respondent banks were represented, but the petitioner's absence and lack of prosecution led to the dismissal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case