State Bank Of India Through Pranesh Thakur vs Fahad Ahmed Siddiqui — 35/2026
Case under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act Section 14. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF OTHERWISE on 16th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHRG030000872026
e-Filing Number
21-12-2025
Filing Number
87/2026
Filing Date
13-01-2026
Registration No
35/2026
Registration Date
13-01-2026
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Raigarh
Judge
1-Chief Judicial Magistrate Raigad-ALIBAG
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED OF OTHERWISE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Bank Of India Through Pranesh Thakur
Adv. BAVANE SMRUTI KAPIL
Respondent(s)
Fahad Ahmed Siddiqui
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Chief Judicial Magistrate Raigad-ALIBAG
Disposed
Order
Order
Verification
Verification
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Order | |
| 07-03-2026 | Order | |
| 27-02-2026 | Verification | |
| 20-01-2026 | Verification |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court allowed State Bank of India's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take physical possession of mortgaged property (Flats 304 & 305, Avnit Plaza, Raigad) valued at approximately ₹34.56 lakhs. The respondent defaulted on home and personal loans totaling ₹43.12 lakhs, and despite a 60-day notice under Section 13(2), failed to repay. The court appointed an advocate as commissioner to execute possession within one month, with police aid if necessary, following established precedent that magistrate review under Section 14 is ministerial rather than adjudicatory. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court allowed State Bank of India's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take physical possession of mortgaged property (Flats 304 & 305, Avnit Plaza, Raigad) valued at approximately ₹34.56 lakhs. The respondent defaulted on home and personal loans totaling ₹43.12 lakhs, and despite a 60-day notice under Section 13(2), failed to repay. The court appointed an advocate as commissioner to execute possession within one month, with police aid if necessary, following established precedent that magistrate review under Section 14 is ministerial rather than adjudicatory. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts