Dismissed

Pitambar Das v. Ao/Chief Manager, Sbi, Cuttack

Orissa HC22 Sept 2023WP(C)/14885/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeking release of MSME subsidy and extension of time for loan settlement. Court disposed of petition directing petitioner to first obtain BIS certificate before approaching authorities for subsidy sanction and relief.

What did the court decide?

Order disposing of Writ Petition directing petitioner to obtain BIS certificate and approach appropriate authority for subsidy sanction and release.

Pitambar Das Vs Ao/Chief Manager, Sbi, Cuttack — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.14885 of 2023

¶2

Pitambar Das

¶3

…. Petitioner Mr. Tuna Sahu, Adv.

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. Authorized Officer/ Chief Opposite Parties Manager, State Bank of India and Ors.

¶6

Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Adv. (for O.P.1) Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv. (for O.P.2) Mr. Ch. Satyajit Mishra, AGA

¶7

Order No.

¶8

¶9

CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 22.09.2023

¶10

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2 . In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to the Opposite Parties for release of the subsidy amount i.e. to the extent of 35 % of the subsidy on sponsored composite MSME Loan as per the MSME Guidelines and Scheme.

¶11

3 . Heard learned counsels for the Parties.

¶12

4 . The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Petitioner is

¶13

an Electrical Engineer and belonging to Schedule Caste community. He had approached the District Industries Centre, Dhenkanal for a Micro, Small and Medium

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Page 1 of 7

¶16

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUT TACK Date: 25-Sep-2023 11:18:50

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

Enterprises (MSME) loan under subsidy scheme. Accordingly, the District Industries Centre, Dhenkanal vide Memo No.1080 dated 27.05.2016 requested the Opposite Party/ Bank to sanction the loan amount of Rs.24,67,900/- towards Term Loan and Rs.25,22,000/towards Cash Credit loan. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.4/ General Manager, DIC, Dhenkanal sponsored the Petitioner's loan application along with the Project Profile to the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Dhenkanal along with the details of project cost of Rs.49,89,900/- vide letter No.1080 dated 27.05.2016. Thereafter, the Petitioner had submitted the hand written loan application to the Opposite Party No.2/ Chief Manager, SBI, Dhenkanal on 30.05.2016.

¶19

5 . When the Project was evaluated for Rs.49,89,900/-, the Opposite Party/ Bank sanctioned an amount Rs.32,20,000/- only despite the Petitioner having spent an amount of Rs.16,90,000/- towards the construction of the building for House, Cable Wiring, Manufacturing Work, shed with Testing Laboratory and 3 phase Electrification as the Petitioner's share/component of the composite loan.

¶20

6 . Though the sanctioned amount was not sufficient for the Project, the Petitioner had spent a huge sum of

¶21

Page 2 of 7

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUT TACK Date: 25-Sep-2023 11:18:50

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

Rs.16,90,000/- for establishing the said Unit only to avail the loan facility. The Opposite Party/ Bank further harassed the Petitioner by disbursing Rs.27,87,000/- only out of the sanctioned amount of Rs 32,20,000/-. With much hardship, the Petitioner started the Unit by the name and style ‘M/s PLJ Cables’ and was paying the EMIs regularly. But, due to the COVID-19 pandemic the unit of the Petitioner faced serious financial crises. Thereafter, the Petitioner realizing his inability to pay the regular installments approached the Opposite Party/ Bank for settlement of the loan account. He also approached the Opposite Party No.4/ General Manager, DIC, Dhenkanal for releasing the subsidy amount.

¶26

7 . Despite repeated requests of the Petitioner vide various communications to the Opposite Party/ Bank Authorities, the Opposite Party/ Bank Authorities neither allowed to claim the subsidy amount nor advised the Petitioner to claim the subsidy amount as per the Notification vide No.11MSME 2/2017/614 of the Government of Odisha regarding the submission of subsidy claim bills by the loanee.

¶27

8 . Being aggrieved, the Petitioner had approached this Court vide W.P.(C) No.2254 of 2022. The Opposite Party/ Bank Authorities were made necessary parties in W.P.(C)

¶28

Page 3 of 7

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUT TACK Date: 25-Sep-2023 11:18:50

¶31

// 4 //

¶32

No. 2254 of 2022. During pendency of the said Writ Petition, the Bank Authorities had issued letter dated 21.01.2022 to the Petitioner indicating therein that his loan account was eligible for settlement under SBI OTS Scheme, 2021. In the said letter, the Opposite Party/ Bank had also indicated that the Petitioner's loan account could

¶33

be settled for an amount of Rs.23,16,481.01p, in case the Petitioner approached the Bank with the application for Settlement and upon deposit of minimum 10% of the settlement amount. On receipt of the said letter, the Petitioner had submitted his settlement application dated 21.02.2022 along with 10% as upfront amount. Consequently, the Opposite Party/ Bank had also accepted the settlement proposal of the Petitioner vide letter dated 21.02.2022.

¶34

9 . This Court vide order dated 31.01.2022 disposed of the W.P.(C) No.2254 of 2022 directing the Opposite Party No.4 therein to look in to the grievance of the Petitioner and to take a lawful decision within a time period of two months from the date of communication of the Order. Even after passing of such order by this Court, the Opposite Party No.4 and the Bank authorities are sitting over the matter.

¶35

Page 4 of 7

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUT TACK Date: 25-Sep-2023 11:18:50

¶38

// 5 //

¶39

10 . Thereafter, the Petitioner had paid Rs.12,96,000/- out of the entire settlement amount of Rs.23,16,481.01p, which was more than 50% of the arrived settlement amount. But, the Petitioner could not deposit the balance settlement amount because of the fact that the Petitioner did not receive any subsidy amount despite passing of the order dated 31.01.2022 in W.P. (C) No.2254 of 2022. Furthermore, the Petitioner could not sell away an agricultural land to pay the residual settlement amount in

¶40

time.

¶41

11 . In such circumstances, the Petitioner had sent a letter to the Bank on 12.09.2022 requesting the Opposite Party/ Bank to extend the time period of payment of the settlement amount, and also promising therein to pay the residual amount of Rs.10,20,481.01p along with the delayed payment interest.

¶42

12 . As the Opposite Party Bank did not communicate the decision on the letter of the petitioner dated 12.09.2022, the Petitioner had again issued letter dated 29.04.2023 to the bank to consider the request for allowance of time to

¶43

pay the residual dues of the arrived settlement. But till today, the Opposite Party/ Bank had not communicated any reply. On the one hand, the Opposite Party No.4 is not releasing the subsidy amount and on the other hand

¶44

Page 5 of 7

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUT TACK Date: 25-Sep-2023 11:18:50

¶47

// 6 //

¶48

the Opposite Party/ Bank remains silent in respect of extension of time to pay the balance OTS amount.

¶49

13 . The Petitioner has already submitted all the necessary documents before the Opposite Party No.4/ General Manager, DIC, Dhenkanal for release of the subsidy amount. But, no decision has been taken by the authorities. Hence, this Writ Petition.

¶50

14 . Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the Petitioner is entitled to get subsidy from the State Government, but the said subsidy amount has not

¶51

been sanctioned and released in favour of the Petitioner. He further submits that the Opposite Party/ Bank remains silent in respect of extension of time to pay the balance OTS amount. Therefore, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite Party No.4/ General Manager, DIC, Dhenkanal may be directed to release the subsidy amount so also the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2/ Bank may be directed to extend time period of three months for payment of the residual dues of the arrived/ final settlement amount along with the delayed payment interest.

¶52

15 . Learned counsel for the State submits that due to deficiency of document i.e. non-production of BIS certificate by the Petitioner before the authority, the

¶53

Page 6 of 7

¶54

Signature Not Verified

¶55

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUT TACK Date: 25-Sep-2023 11:18:50

¶56

// 7 //

¶57

authority could not sanction and release the subsidy amount.

¶58

16 . In such view of the matter, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition directing the Petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for obtaining the BIS certificate and after obtaining the said certificate he is to approach the appropriate authority for sanctioning and releasing of the subsidy amount as per the scheme.

¶59

17 . Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶60

18 . Interim order dated 15.05.2023 passed in I.A. No.6880 of 2023 arising out of W.P.(C) No.14885 of 2023 stands vacated.

¶61

19 . Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶62

( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶63

B.Jhankar

¶64

Page 7 of 7

¶65

Signature Not Verified

¶66

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUT TACK Date: 25-Sep-2023 11:18:50

Pitambar Das v. Ao/Chief Manager, Sbi, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pitambar Das v. Ao/Chief Manager, Sbi, 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

Jyotismina Mantri Vs State of Odisha

Nabaghana Samal Vs State of Odisha

Basumati Sagaria Vs State of Odisha

Sasmita Biswal Vs Collector,Puri

Claim Review Committee, Bajaj Allianz LIC Ltd. Vs Sukanti Bej

Sudama Prasad Yadav Vs State of Odisha