M/S AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED vs KAMARAJI NAGALINGAM Advocate - Sarfaesi — 1118/2025

Case under Securitisationandreconstructionoffinancialassets&enforcementofsecurityinterestact Section 14. Disposed: Uncontested--Allowed on 07th April 2026.

CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

CNR: TNTJ180039432025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

11-08-2025

Filing Number

3933/2025

Filing Date

19-08-2025

Registration No

1118/2025

Registration Date

24-12-2025

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kumbakonam

Judge

2-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur @Kumbakonam

Decision Date

07th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Allowed

Acts & Sections

SecuritisationandReconstructionofFinancialAssets&EnforcementofSecurityInterestAct Section 14

Petitioner(s)

M/S AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED

Adv. ASHOK KUMAR R

Respondent(s)

KAMARAJI NAGALINGAM Advocate - Sarfaesi

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur @Kumbakonam

07-04-2026

Disposed

25-03-2026

Orders

11-03-2026

Orders

26-02-2026

Orders

18-02-2026

Appearance

Final Orders / Judgements

07-04-2026
Copy of Order

Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur allowed AU Small Finance Bank's petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, against borrowers who defaulted on a Rs. 5 lakh mortgage loan. The court appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to take possession of the mortgaged property after the bank issued statutory demand and possession notices, which the respondents failed to comply with. The bank was authorized to break open the property if necessary and hand over possession to the bank. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur allowed AU Small Finance Bank's petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, against borrowers who defaulted on a Rs. 5 lakh mortgage loan. The court appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to take possession of the mortgaged property after the bank issued statutory demand and possession notices, which the respondents failed to comply with. The bank was authorized to break open the property if necessary and hand over possession to the bank. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kumbakonam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case