State Bank Of India through Mahesh Choudhary vs Sulbha Dharmaraj Lubal — 1025/2024
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: MHRG030020692024
e-Filing Number
24-07-2024
Filing Number
2069/2024
Filing Date
05-09-2024
Registration No
1025/2024
Registration Date
05-09-2024
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 Mahesh Choudhary
Adv. PRASHANT PUNDLIK SATVASE
Respondent(s)
Sulbha Dharmaraj Lubal
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 | |
| 17-02-2026 | Verification | |
| 30-01-2026 | Verification |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate granted State Bank of India's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take physical possession of a mortgaged flat in Navi Mumbai valued at approximately ₹69,24,000. The respondent defaulted on her home loan obligation of ₹71,97,563 despite a 60-day notice issued under Section 13(2), and the court appointed a Court Commissioner to execute possession within one month, relying on Supreme Court precedent that Section 14 proceedings are ministerial in nature requiring only verification of procedural compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate granted State Bank of India's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take physical possession of a mortgaged flat in Navi Mumbai valued at approximately ₹69,24,000. The respondent defaulted on her home loan obligation of ₹71,97,563 despite a 60-day notice issued under Section 13(2), and the court appointed a Court Commissioner to execute possession within one month, relying on Supreme Court precedent that Section 14 proceedings are ministerial in nature requiring only verification of procedural compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts