Founded by Managing Partner K.P. Sreejith, INDIALAW began as a small firm in Mumbai with a commitment to client service and corporate-focused legal solutions. From its modest beginnings, the firm has grown into a respected name by prioritizing excellence, integrity, and tailored legal strategies. INDIALAW’s team believes in adapting to each client’s unique needs, ensuring that solutions align with individual circumstances and business goals.
The firm combines its deep understanding of the local business landscape with experience across multiple jurisdictions, enabling clients to navigate complex legal environments effectively. INDIALAW emphasizes proactive service, anticipating client needs and potential challenges to provide timely, high-quality legal support. The firm values lasting client relationships and sees its role as a trusted advisor, dedicated to delivering business-friendly and principled legal counsel.
The Calcutta High Court's ruling in Jainco Projects (India) Limited v. UCO Bank examines critical procedural requirements for SARFAESI appeals, specifically addressing the interplay between One Time Settlement orders and mandatory pre-deposit provisions. This decision clarifies when borrowers can challenge debt recovery actions and what financial obligations must be met before appellate tribunals will hear their cases.
within Finance and Banking, International Law and Law Department Performance topic(s)
In this episode of Podcast Bites powered by IndiaLaw LLP, host Arpan Anand discusses the Calcutta High Court’s decision in Jainco Projects (India) Limited v. UCO Bank and Others, decided on 20 May 2026.
The judgment examines an important issue under the SARFAESI Act, 2002: whether a borrower can avoid the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 18 by arguing that the order challenged before the DRAT is merely procedural.
The Court held that rejection of a request seeking implementation of a One-Time Settlement scheme was not a purely procedural order, but a substantive determination affecting the borrower’s loan liability. The episode explains the background of the dispute, the borrower’s arguments, the bank’s response, and why the Court held that substance must prevail over form in SARFAESI appellate proceedings.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
