JANA SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD REP THROUGH MR SASANKA SHEKHAR DUTTA vs MR AFTAB KHAN AND MR MUJIB KHAN — 1048/2025

Case under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act Section 14. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 30th March 2026.

Case disposed

Misc Case

CNR: WBBD160206002025

Filing Number

20600/2025

Filing Date

14-Nov-2025

Registration No

1048/2025

Registration Date

17-Nov-2025

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol, Burdwan

Judge

9-CJM

Decision Date

30-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 23-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act Section 14

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JANA SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD REP THROUGH MR SASANKA SHEKHAR DUTTA

    Adv. AMAN SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MR AFTAB KHAN AND MR MUJIB KHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Mar-2026

    short orderView PDF

    The Chief Judicial Magistrate granted Jana Small Finance Bank's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of a secured residential property in Asansol after the borrowers (Aftab Khan and Mujib Khan) defaulted on a ₹15.10 lakh loan and failed to respond to the bank's demand notice. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to execute the possession order with police assistance, video documentation required, and a compliance report due within 60 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    CJM

  4. 19-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    CJM

  5. 07-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 14-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1048/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Chief Judicial Magistrate granted Jana Small Finance Bank's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of a secured residential property in Asansol after the borrowers (Aftab Khan and Mujib Khan) defaulted on a ₹15.10 lakh loan and failed to respond to the bank's demand notice. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to execute the possession order with police assistance, video documentation required, and a compliance report due within 60 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case