Canara Bank Br.Jamsamarth, Tq.Ghansawangi Dist.Jalna vs Sangeeta Suresh Rathod — 130/2023

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26. Disposed: Uncontested--DECREED EX-PARTE on 08th May 2026.

Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)

CNR: MHJN040018332023

Case disposed

Filing Number

651/2023

Filing Date

18-07-2023

Registration No

130/2023

Registration Date

18-07-2023

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Ambad

Judge

14-Civil Judge Senior Division

Decision Date

08th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DECREED EX-PARTE

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 26

Petitioner(s)

Canara Bank Br.Jamsamarth, Tq.Ghansawangi Dist.Jalna

Adv. JHA A.N.

Respondent(s)

Sangeeta Suresh Rathod

Hearing History

Judge: 14-Civil Judge Senior Division

08-05-2026

Disposed

17-04-2026

Arguments

16-03-2026

Evidence

27-01-2026

Appearance

04-12-2025

Proclomation

Final Orders / Judgements

08-05-2026
Copy of Judgment

The court decreed Canara Bank's suit in full, ordering defendant Sangeeta Suresh Rathod to pay Rs. 7,56,742/- with 9% per annum interest from filing date until realization within six months. The defendant had defaulted on a Rs. 3,00,000/- agricultural term loan disbursed in 2014, which became non-performing in 2018; the court proceeded ex parte after she failed to appear and rejected the bank's claimed 11.65% interest as excessive, substituting 9% instead. The bank is entitled to recover the amount through sale of the mortgaged agricultural property if payment isn't made within the stipulated period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court decreed Canara Bank's suit in full, ordering defendant Sangeeta Suresh Rathod to pay Rs. 7,56,742/- with 9% per annum interest from filing date until realization within six months. The defendant had defaulted on a Rs. 3,00,000/- agricultural term loan disbursed in 2014, which became non-performing in 2018; the court proceeded ex parte after she failed to appear and rejected the bank's claimed 11.65% interest as excessive, substituting 9% instead. The bank is entitled to recover the amount through sale of the mortgaged agricultural property if payment isn't made within the stipulated period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Ambad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case