UCO BANK SHANTNU GAUR, SANJAY GAUR vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (ED) Advocate - MONIKA PANT — CRLA/675/2025

Case under Limitation Act, 1963 (Act No. 36 of 1963) Section 5/14. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: UKHC010182522025

Filing Number

CRLA/9459/2025

Filing Date

17-Nov-2025

Registration No

CRLA/675/2025

Registration Date

17-Nov-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

APPEAL ( 3 )

Sub-Category

R.I. UPTO 10 YEARS & FINE ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act, 1963 (Act No. 36 of 1963) Section 5/14

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UCO BANK SHANTNU GAUR, SANJAY GAUR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (ED) Advocate - MONIKA PANT

  2. 2.M/S MINOCHA FURNITURE

  3. 3.M/S SAROJ FURNITURE

  4. 4.M/S AAKRITI FURNITURE

  5. 5.SHRI SANJAY MINOCHA

  6. 6.SMT. SAROJ MINOCHA

  7. 7.SMT. RUCHIKA MINOCHA

  8. 8.SH. ANURAG MINOCHA,

  9. 9.SMT. RUCHI MINOCHA

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 03-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish NaithaniView PDF

    In BA1 No. 675/2025 before Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J., the bail application filed by UCO Bank and others against the Directorate of Enforcement was adjourned. The applicant failed to appear, while ED counsel Ms. Monika Pant appeared via video conference. The court noted that procedural defects identified by the Registry had not been cured and ordered the case to be listed after the defects are rectified (03.06.2026). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Nov-2025

    Fresh Cases As Defective -236

    Registrar (Judicial)

  4. 17-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRLA/675/2025

casestatus.in Summary

In BA1 No. 675/2025 before Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J., the bail application filed by UCO Bank and others against the Directorate of Enforcement was adjourned. The applicant failed to appear, while ED counsel Ms. Monika Pant appeared via video conference. The court noted that procedural defects identified by the Registry had not been cured and ordered the case to be listed after the defects are rectified (03.06.2026). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case