Bajaj Housing Finance Limited. (Authorised Officer Kunal Shah). vs Abhijit Ghosh and Tandra Ghosh. — 60/2026
Case under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act Section 14. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 16th March 2026.
M C Case
CNR: WBHG060006352026
Filing Number
635/2026
Filing Date
10-Feb-2026
Registration No
60/2026
Registration Date
10-Feb-2026
Court
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, Hooghly
Judge
7-Acjm
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
Last updated 16-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Bajaj Housing Finance Limited. (Authorised Officer Kunal Shah).
Adv. Arup Sarkar
Respondent(s)
-
1.Abhijit Ghosh and Tandra Ghosh.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
copy of orderView PDF
-
16-Mar-2026
copy of orderView PDF
Case Summary: Bajaj Housing Finance Limited v. Abhijit Ghosh & Tandra Ghosh The court granted Bajaj Housing Finance Limited's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 for possession of a residential property in Serampore, Hooghly, after the borrowers defaulted on a ₹27 lakh home loan. The court found that the petitioner complied with all statutory requirements under Sections 13(2) and 13(4), including issuing notices and taking symbolic possession with newspaper publication. The court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the property and hand it over to the lender's authorized officer, with detailed procedures for notice, inventory, photography, and police assistance. The borrowers were informed they may file objections before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
Acjm
-
10-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 60/2026
Case Summary: Bajaj Housing Finance Limited v. Abhijit Ghosh & Tandra Ghosh The court granted Bajaj Housing Finance Limited's application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 for possession of a residential property in Serampore, Hooghly, after the borrowers defaulted on a ₹27 lakh home loan. The court found that the petitioner complied with all statutory requirements under Sections 13(2) and 13(4), including issuing notices and taking symbolic possession with newspaper publication. The court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the property and hand it over to the lender's authorized officer, with detailed procedures for notice, inventory, photography, and police assistance. The borrowers were informed they may file objections before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts