The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition as not a fit case for invoking equitable jurisdiction to grant relief for defaulting on a loan settlement order approved by the National Lok Adalat, directing instead that the petitioner approach the bank for redressal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.7316 of 2021
Raghunath Nayak
Petitioner
Mr. Om Swarup, Advocate
-versus-
Branch Head, UCO Bank, …. Opp.party Balipatna Branch, Khurda
Mr. B.B. Swain, Advocate for the Bank
CORAM: JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO
ORDER
17.01.2023
Hybrid Mode
Order No. 05 . 1 . The writ petition has been filed by the defaulting borrower, who had taken a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as a housing loan from the UCO Bank, Balianta Branch, DistKhurda, which was declared as NPA on 31.03.2015, demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 13.06.2015 demanding a of Rs.6,60,191/- due as on 31.03.2015. Symbolic possession under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was assumed on 30.11.2015.
“... ... ...
Thus with the consent and on agreement between the parties, it is directed that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lacs) in total to
// 2 //
the opposite party-Bank towards full and final settlement of his loan account within two months hence. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees one lakh) in shape of Account Payee Cheque to the opposite party-Bank within seven days hence and for the rest amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lacs), the petitioner shall handover two post dated cheques amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees one lakh and fifty thousand) each to be payable on 20th May, 2017 and 20th June, 2017 to the opposite party-Bank within seven days hence.
It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid direction, the opposite party-Bank will have the option to withdraw from this settlement and ralize the outstanding loan amounts from the petitioner. Furthermore, if any, of the cheques bounces, the petitioner shall also be criminally liable for the same.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly in terms of the aforesaid compromise in this Lok Adalat.”
“Misc. Case No.14916 of 2017
&
I.A. No.5627 of 2018
These two applications have been filed for extension of time to comply with the order dated 08.04.2017 and for modification of the said order.
As the order of this Court dated 08.04.2017 was passed in the National Lok Adalat on the consent of the parties, we are not inclined to modify the said order.
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
Both the misc. case and I.A. are accordingly dismissed.
It is open for the petitioner to approach the opposite party-Bank for extension of time for settlement of the loan account.”
(Jaswant Singh) (M.S.Sahoo) Judge Judge
17th January, 2023 Cuttack
Gs/dutta
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction to grant relief to a defaulting borrower who failed to comply with a settlement order passed in a National Lok Adalat.
Raghunath Nayak
Branch Head, UCO Bank, Balipatna Branch, Khurda
Jaswant Singh
M.S. Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
