Allowed

Saktikanta Das v. Cda, Cuttack

Orissa HC10 Nov 2021WP(C)/31467/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa recalled an order disposing of a writ petition on directions without impleading a borrower applicant. The petitioner was an auction purchaser. The court held that filing without impleading the applicant was procedurally flawed and the writ petition was misconceived as its outcome could be affected by a stronger constitutional bench.

What did the court decide?

The interim order of 10th November 2021 was recalled and the intervening applicants were added as parties. The writ petition was dismissed.

Saktikanta Das Vs Cda, Cuttack — Company and Corporate | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.31467 Of 2021 (Through hybrid mode)

¶3

Saktikanta Das

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. N.K. Barik, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

CDA, Cuttack and others

¶8

…. Opposite parties

¶9

Mr. D. Mohapatra, Advocate for CDA Mr. Milan Kanugo, Sr. Advocate for four interveners

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA ORDER 25.11.2021

¶11

Order No.

¶12

I.A. No.16926 of 2021,I.A. No.16927 of 2021 and I.A. No.16928 of 2021

¶13

¶14

1. Mr. Kanungo, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of interveners and submits, prayer in the application (Flag-B) I.A. no.16926 of 2021 is for recall of order dated 10^th November, 2021, whereby the writ petition was disposed of on directions made therein. He submits, his clients have another application being I.A. no.16928 of 2021 for being added as parties and I.A. No.16927 of 2021 for appropriate order.

¶15

2. His client was borrower. His client had challenged the sale under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

¶16

Page 1 of 1

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) before a Division Bench of this Court. Order of status quo was made. Suppressing all this and against the rules, the writ petition was filed and order obtained without impleading his client. It was practice of fraud on Court.

¶19

3. Mr. Barik, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, the writ Court was duly moved and the petition dealt with and disposed of. His client has right to have the sale completed, being auction purchaser. He relies on order dated 18^th March, 2021 passed

¶20

by the Division Bench in the SARFAESI matter, in particular paragraph-3 to submit, there is no impediment thereby obstructing the course of action adopted by his client.

¶21

4. Paragraph-3 in said order dated 18^th March, 2021 made by the Division Bench in I.A. no.4113 of 2021 is reproduced below:

¶22

“ Having heard Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, who appears for the LRs of the erstwhile borrower and having considered the submission, the Court modifies the interim order dated 17^th May, 2017 by vacating the status quo and directing that all steps taken by the auction purchaser hereafter would be subject to further orders of the Court .”

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

The direction was, steps taken by petitioner being auction purchaser pursuant to above order would be subject to orders of the Division Bench. That makes the step taken by petitioner in moving the writ Court without impleading applicant, a step automatically subject to orders that may be passed by the Division Bench. This procedure is unknown in law. An order passed by a writ Court can be appealed against but cannot be subject to order of a stronger Bench in the same Court. Therefore, the writ petition was clearly misconceived and

¶26

mischievous.

¶27

5. All the I.As. are allowed. Order dated 10^th November, 2021 is recalled and intervener-applicants are added as parties.

¶28

6. On reasons given above, the writ petition is dismissed, on treating it as on day’s list.

¶29

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

¶30

Sks

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Saktikanta Das v. Cda, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saktikanta Das v. Cda, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rena@Runu Nayak Vs Namita Nayak

Md. Qaisar Iqbal Ali Vs State of Odisha

Raghunatha Palei Vs Principal Secy. Govt.of Odisha

Sanjay Keshari Mohapatra Vs State of Orissa

Manas Ranjan Sahoo Vs Ao, Union Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch

Paradip Port Trust, Paradip Vs Udayanath Rout