ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LTD vs CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE — WPMS/1773/2026

Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 10th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: UKHC010099842026

Filing Number

WPMS/5211/2026

Filing Date

08-Jun-2026

Registration No

WPMS/1773/2026

Registration Date

08-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

MISC WRIT PETITION ( 2 )

Sub-Category

SARFAI ACT- RECOVERIES AND AUCTION BY THE BANK ( 61 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Decision Date

10-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LTD

    Adv. SIDDHARTH JAIN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

  2. 2.SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

    Adv. C.S.C.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar TiwariView PDF

    Case Summary: WPMS/1773/2026 ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd sought execution of a Chief Judicial Magistrate's order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, claiming non-delivery of physical possession of the secured asset. The court declined to issue the requested direction but disposed of the petition by permitting the petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority within two weeks, with the authority required to decide the matter within six weeks thereafter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Jun-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -260

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari

  4. 08-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPMS/1773/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WPMS/1773/2026 ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd sought execution of a Chief Judicial Magistrate's order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, claiming non-delivery of physical possession of the secured asset. The court declined to issue the requested direction but disposed of the petition by permitting the petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority within two weeks, with the authority required to decide the matter within six weeks thereafter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case