IDBI Bank Ltd vs Keerthy M Lal — 400437/2025
Case under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act Section 14. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 18th March 2026.
MC - MISCELLANEOUS & MAINTENANCE CASE
CNR: KLAL050004772025
e-Filing Number
26-04-2025
Filing Number
476/2025
Filing Date
07-May-2025
Registration No
400437/2025
Registration Date
24-Jun-2025
Court
CJM Court Alappuzha
Judge
1-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
18-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 21-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.IDBI Bank Ltd
Adv. RAMYA RAMACHANDRAN M
Respondent(s)
-
1.Keerthy M Lal
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Case Summary: IDBI Bank Ltd v. Keerthy M. Lal (M.C. 437/2025) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha granted IDBI Bank's application under Section 14(1) of SARFAESI Act 2002 for possession of a Tata Altroz vehicle (Reg. KL-04-AS-8290) pledged as security against a loan. The respondent had defaulted on repayment and failed to respond to statutory notice under Section 13(2), entitling the bank to possession of the secured asset. However, the case was ultimately closed on March 18, 2026, after the appointed advocate commissioner reported inability to locate and trace the vehicle despite efforts since June 2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Mar-2026
Disposed
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
20-Jan-2026
Call on
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
21-Nov-2025
Call on
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Sep-2025
For commission report
Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
01-Jul-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-May-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 400437/2025
Case Summary: IDBI Bank Ltd v. Keerthy M. Lal (M.C. 437/2025) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha granted IDBI Bank's application under Section 14(1) of SARFAESI Act 2002 for possession of a Tata Altroz vehicle (Reg. KL-04-AS-8290) pledged as security against a loan. The respondent had defaulted on repayment and failed to respond to statutory notice under Section 13(2), entitling the bank to possession of the secured asset. However, the case was ultimately closed on March 18, 2026, after the appointed advocate commissioner reported inability to locate and trace the vehicle despite efforts since June 2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts