M/S JAINCO PROJECTS INDIA LTD AHARNISH GHOSH vs UCO BANK AND ORS — CO/3021/2025
Case under Sarfaesi Act ,2002 Section N A. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 20th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0387342025
Next Hearing
26th August 2025
Filing Number
CO/3050/2025
Filing Date
14-08-2025
Registration No
CO/3021/2025
Registration Date
14-08-2025
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )
Sub-Category
Miscellaneous ( 57 )
Judicial Branch
RULE SECTION
Decision Date
20th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/S JAINCO PROJECTS INDIA LTD AHARNISH GHOSH
Respondent(s)
UCO BANK AND ORS
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
NEW MOTION
CONTESTED APPLICATION
CONTESTED APPLICATION
CONTESTED APPLICATION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-08-2025 | NEW MOTION |
| 20-05-2026 | CONTESTED APPLICATION |
| 08-06-2026 | CONTESTED APPLICATION |
| 04-05-2026 | CONTESTED APPLICATION |
Orders
Summary: The High Court of Calcutta dismissed Jainco Projects' petition challenging the DRAT's July 2025 order requiring 50% pre-deposit of ₹4.95 crore debt under SARFAESI Act Section 18(1). The court held that the DRT's March 2025 order rejecting the borrower's plea for bank implementation of its One-Time Settlement (OTS) scheme was substantive, not procedural, and therefore pre-deposit was mandatory for appeals before DRAT. The court upheld settled law that borrowers must deposit 50% debt or face appeal dismissal, with DRAT only authorized to reduce it minimally to 25%. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The High Court of Calcutta dismissed Jainco Projects' petition challenging the DRAT's July 2025 order requiring 50% pre-deposit of ₹4.95 crore debt under SARFAESI Act Section 18(1). The court held that the DRT's March 2025 order rejecting the borrower's plea for bank implementation of its One-Time Settlement (OTS) scheme was substantive, not procedural, and therefore pre-deposit was mandatory for appeals before DRAT. The court upheld settled law that borrowers must deposit 50% debt or face appeal dismissal, with DRAT only authorized to reduce it minimally to 25%. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts