UMESH CHANDRA DAS vs THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND 2 ORS Advocate - MS A SAHA, ,MS S DEY,MR. K K NANDI — WP(C)/5143/2025

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: GAHC010193662025

e-Filing Number

26-08-2025

Filing Number

WP(C)/11120/2025

Filing Date

26-Aug-2025

Registration No

WP(C)/5143/2025

Registration Date

02-Sep-2025

Judge

Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury

Coram

Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

10162 - Recovery of other dues under the Public Demand Recovery Act ( 155 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 03-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UMESH CHANDRA DAS

    Adv. MR. O P BHATI,MR T C DAS,MR T C DAS, ,S. K. GUPTA,MR. P SARMA,MR T C DAS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND 2 ORS Advocate - MS A SAHA, ,MS S DEY,MR. K K NANDI

  2. 2.THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER

  3. 3.THE STATE BANK OF INDIA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev ChoudhuryView PDF

    Summary The Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by borrower Umesh Chandra Das challenging the Appellate Tribunal's requirement of 35% pre-deposit of debt to appeal a Debts Recovery Tribunal order. The court held that Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 mandates pre-deposit (50% or reduced to minimum 25%), and since no hardship was demonstrated and the loan amount was undisputed and declared a Non-Performing Asset, the tribunal's decision would not be interfered with. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that disputing the equitable mortgage was a strategy to avoid loan repayment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    - Admission With Notice Served - Reply Filed -

    Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev ChoudhuryView PDF

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    - Admission With Notice Served - Reply Filed -

    Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev ChoudhuryView PDF

  7. 09-Mar-2026

    - Admission With Notice Served - Reply Filed -

    Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury

  8. 26-Feb-2026

    Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev ChoudhuryView PDF

  9. 26-Feb-2026

    - Admission With Notice Served - Reply Not Filed -

    Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury

  10. 09-Jan-2026

    Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev ChoudhuryView PDF

  11. 09-Jan-2026

    Admission

    Honourable Mr. Justice Michael Zothankhuma , Honourable Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair

  12. 03-Dec-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice Michael Zothankhuma,honourable Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan NairView PDF

  13. 03-Dec-2025

    - Admission With Notice Served - Reply Not Filed -

    Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury

  14. 24-Oct-2025

    Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev ChoudhuryView PDF

  15. 24-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  16. 05-Sep-2025

    Honourable The Chief Justice,honourable Mr. Justice Arun Dev ChoudhuryView PDF

  17. 26-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/5143/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by borrower Umesh Chandra Das challenging the Appellate Tribunal's requirement of 35% pre-deposit of debt to appeal a Debts Recovery Tribunal order. The court held that Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 mandates pre-deposit (50% or reduced to minimum 25%), and since no hardship was demonstrated and the loan amount was undisputed and declared a Non-Performing Asset, the tribunal's decision would not be interfered with. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that disputing the equitable mortgage was a strategy to avoid loan repayment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case