Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Com Ltd vs Mahemood Mahamad Shaikh — 53/2026
Case under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act Section 14. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 25th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHJN030003612026
e-Filing Number
13-01-2026
Filing Number
361/2026
Filing Date
17-01-2026
Registration No
53/2026
Registration Date
17-01-2026
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Jalna
Judge
39-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Com Ltd
Adv. AGRAWAL BOBBY RADHESHAM
Respondent(s)
Mahemood Mahamad Shaikh
Nasim Mahemood Shaikh
Hearing History
Judge: 39-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 27-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 05-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 28-01-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Cri. M.A. No. 53/2026 The court granted Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of a mortgaged property in Jalna, valued at Rs. 95 sq. meters. The borrowers defaulted on a loan of Rs. 8,64,396 sanctioned in 2015, with outstanding dues reaching Rs. 24,88,818.44 by September 2024. After issuing a demand notice on 13.09.2024 which went unheeded, the court appointed a Court Commissioner to physically seize the asset and hand it over to the petitioner, holding that compliance with Section 13(4) procedures is not mandatory before approaching the magistrate under Section 14. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Cri. M.A. No. 53/2026 The court granted Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of a mortgaged property in Jalna, valued at Rs. 95 sq. meters. The borrowers defaulted on a loan of Rs. 8,64,396 sanctioned in 2015, with outstanding dues reaching Rs. 24,88,818.44 by September 2024. After issuing a demand notice on 13.09.2024 which went unheeded, the court appointed a Court Commissioner to physically seize the asset and hand it over to the petitioner, holding that compliance with Section 13(4) procedures is not mandatory before approaching the magistrate under Section 14. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts