The Alleppey Urban cooperative bankl vs Santhosh — 400197/2025
Case under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act Section 14. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 12th March 2026.
MC - MISCELLANEOUS & MAINTENANCE CASE
CNR: KLAL050002442025
e-Filing Number
25-02-2025
Filing Number
243/2025
Filing Date
25-Feb-2025
Registration No
400197/2025
Registration Date
06-Mar-2025
Court
CJM Court Alappuzha
Judge
1-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
12-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 25-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.The Alleppey Urban cooperative bankl
Adv. GEORGE K
Respondent(s)
-
1.Santhosh
-
2.Sandhya
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Case Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Alappuzha initially granted Alleppey Urban Co-operative Bank's SARFAESI petition to take possession of the secured property pledged by borrowers Santhosh and Sandhya.V, who had defaulted on their loan repayment despite receiving statutory notice. However, the case was subsequently closed when the respondents paid the entire outstanding amount, and the petitioner bank withdrew its possession proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Mar-2026
Disposed
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
16-Jan-2026
Call on
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
20-Nov-2025
For commission report
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Sep-2025
For commission report
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
19-Jul-2025
For commission report
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
17-May-2025
For commission report
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
13-Mar-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Feb-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 400197/2025
Case Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Alappuzha initially granted Alleppey Urban Co-operative Bank's SARFAESI petition to take possession of the secured property pledged by borrowers Santhosh and Sandhya.V, who had defaulted on their loan repayment despite receiving statutory notice. However, the case was subsequently closed when the respondents paid the entire outstanding amount, and the petitioner bank withdrew its possession proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts