Dismissed

Premananda Satapathy v. Sr. Bm. Union Bank of India

Orissa HC13 Sept 2023WP(C)/21027/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petitioner challenged a bank letter recalling a sanctioned loan for a manufacturing unit due to undisclosed guarantorship in another NPA. The High Court held the order had no infirmity and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The application to recall the loan sanction was refused, but the petitioner's challenge to the bank's action was dismissed.

Premananda Satapathy Vs Sr. Bm. Union Bank of India — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21027 of 2022

¶2

Premananda Satapathy

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. S.K. Aziz, Adv.

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. Sr. B.M., Union Bank of India, Opposite Parties Puri

¶7

Mr. M.K. Mishra, Adv.

¶8

Order No. 04.

¶9

CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 13.09.2023

¶10

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶11

2 . In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the impugned letter No.04581/Notice/12 dated 29.06.2022 issued by the Opposite Party/Bank.

¶12

3 . Fact of the case is that Petitioner had availed a loan in order to set up a manufacturing unit of Chaki Atta, Besan etc., which was estimated to be costing of Rs.86,85,000/-. Out of that, Rs.33,35,000/- was sanctioned by the Bank towards the machinery, furniture and fixture, conveyance, water resource, electrification etc. Rest of Rs.53,50,000/- was allocated towards the working

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

capital requirement. In order to meet the financial requirement, the Petitioner approached the Bank for extension of necessary credit facility to meet the financial need for setting up the unit. Hence, the Opposite Party/Bank being satisfied with the financial credential of the present Petitioner, decided to sanction a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and cash credit limit of Rs.40,00,000/-. Accordingly, the Bank decided to sanction a sum of Rs.65,00,000/- in aggregate for the project, wherein the project cost was of Rs.86,85,000/- requiring the Petitioner to arrange and invest a sum of Rs.21,85,000/-. However, the Opposite Party/Bank has disbursed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as term loan and the Petitioner investing his own fund towards the balance cost of the project purchased the plants and machineries.

¶16

4. In view of the above, the Petitioner is constrained to approach this Court for getting the rest of the loan amount. However, the Bank through the letter dated 29.06.2022 has recalled the whole amount citing that the Petitioner had not disclosed that he was a guarantor in a loan availed from the UCO Bank, Puri, which account has already become NPA.

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

// 3 //

¶19

5. In such view of the matter, the impugned order issued by the Bank does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶20

6 . The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶21

7 . In view of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim

¶22

order dated 22.09.2022 passed in I.A. No.11238 of 2022 stands vacated.

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

Judge

Ayaskanta

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 14-Sep-2023 13:31:51

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Premananda Satapathy v. Sr. Bm. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premananda Satapathy v. Sr. Bm. Union Bank of India

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

Golapi Podh Vs Adm,Bolangir

Lokanath Hans Vs State

The Bm,Odisha Gramya Bank,Mayurbhanj Vs the Permanent Lok Adalat(Pus),Mayurbhanj

Niranjan Patra Vs Bm, Vistaar Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Bbsr

Ranjan Kumar Rout Vs Odisha State Bar Council, Cuttack

Asharani Pani Vs School and Mass Education