Allowed

Gayadhar Jena v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Apr 2024FAO/46/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa allowed an appeal permitting the Appellant to sell attached properties under the OPID Act to deposit sale consideration, provided the entire amount was deposited by a deadline to satisfy depositor interests.

What did the court decide?

Permission to sell scheduled properties and direct the lower court to accept sale consideration, conditional on depositing the entire amount (Rs. 16.08 crores) before 31 August 2024.

Gayadhar Jena Vs State of Odisha — Corruption | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.46 of 2023

¶2

…. Gayadhar Jena Appellant Mr. S.J. Biswal, Advocate

¶3

-versus-

¶4

State of Odisha and another

¶5

…. State of Odisha and another Respondents Mr. B. Bhuyan, Special Counsel (OPID) Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, Advocate for intervenor

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

18.04.2024

Order No.

1. Heard Mr. S.J. Biswal, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. B. Bhuyna, learned Special Counsel for OPID, Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 and Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the intervenor-applicants.

¶13

2. The Appellant is the accused in EOW P.S. Case No.9, dated 15.03.2015 registered for commission of offences under Sections 467/468/471/406/420/120-B, I.P.C. and Section 6 of the OPID Act.

¶14

3. The interim attachment proceeding has been initiated against the Appellant, namely Gayadhar Jena, Managing Director of Sarala Realcon Pvt. Ltd. in I.A. No.6 of 2016 arising out of C.T. No.10/2015, pending in the court of learned P.O., Designated Court (under OPID Act), Cuttack. In the said proceeding, the Appellant filed a petition dated 11.10.2018 seeking permission to

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 19-Apr-2024 14:58:32

¶18

sell the scheduled properties to the specified buyers to enable him to deposit the sale proceedings.

¶19

4. As per the allegations, the Appellant has collected around Rs.17 crores from various depositors.

¶20

5. Mr. S.J. Biswal, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that, if the Appellant will be permitted to sell the properties in six lots, as mentioned in his affidavit dated 06.03.2023, out of the attached properties, he could be able to deposit the entire amount alleged against him. In his affidavit dated 06.03.2023, the names of prospective buyers of such properties have been mentioned and the proposed sale consideration amounts have also been indicated. According to Mr. Biswal, those properties in six lots proposed to be sold to such buyers would at least fetch the consideration amount to the tune of Rs.16,08,35,000/-. It is also submitted that the Appellant has already deposited more than rupees three crores at the time of his release on bail.

¶21

6. In course of hearing, Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that, the properties mentioned at Serial Nos.6, 7, 8 & 9 of Lot No.1, as per the affidavit dated 06.03.2023, has been agreed to be sold in favour of Respondent No.2, for which the Appellant had already received the advance amount of Rs.32,55,000/-. According to learned counsel for Respondent No.2, the balance amount remains to be paid is Rs.4,45,000/-.

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 19-Apr-2024 14:58:32

¶25

7. Regarding the proposed sale consideration amount as submitted by the Appellant and indicated in his affidavit dated 06.03.2023, reply was sought for from Mr. Bhuyan about sufficiency of the valuation of the properties mentioned by the Appellant. A reply has been filed on 20^th March, 2024 by the Investigating Officer stating that, the Bench Mark Valuation in respect of such proposed properties comes to Rs.13,94,64,174/-. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit dated 20.03.2024 is reproduced below.

¶26

“5. That, accordingly requisitions were sent to Sub-Registrar, Kanika, Balianta, Khandagiri, Khurda and Chandabali to provide the Bench March Valuation of the proposed properties and these authorities have duly furnished the same. The copies of those letters are enclosed here with for kind perusal.

¶27

That, on calculation of the amount of the Bench Mark Valuation in respect of the proposed properties comes to Rs.13,94,64,174/- (Thirteen Crore Ninety Four Lakhs Sixty Four Thousands One Hundred Seventy Four).”

¶28

8. In the impugned order, the learned OPID Court has rejected the prayer of the Appellant mainly on the ground that, there is no such provision in the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, 2011 (OPID Act) for sell of the property during subsistence of the interim attachment and pending decision on the same under Section 9 of the Act.

¶29

9. The object of OPID Act is to protect the interest of the depositors. Section 9(6) of the OPID Act speaks as follows:

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 19-Apr-2024 14:58:32

¶33

“9(6) – After inquiry under sub-section (5), the Designated Court shall pass an order, within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of receipt of an application under sub-section (3) of section 4, either making the ad-interim order of attachment absolute or varying it by releasing a portion of the property from attachment or cancelling the ad-interim order of attachment and then direct the Competent Authority to sell the property so attached by public auction and realize the sale proceeds:

¶34

Provided that the Designated Court shall not release from attachment any interest, which it is satisfied that the Financial Establishment or the person referred to in sub-section (1) has in the property, unless it is also satisfied that there will remain under attachment an amount or property of a value not less than the value that is required for repayment to the depositors of such Financial Establishment.”

¶35

10. Further, Section 11 of the OPID Act reads as under.

¶36

11. Security in lieu of attachment – Any Financial Establishment or person whose property has been or is about to be attached under this Act may, at any time, apply to the Designated Court for permission to give security in lieu of such attachment and where the security offered and given is, in the opinion of the Designated Court, satisfactory and sufficient, it may cancel the adinterim order of attachment or, as the case may be, refrain from passing the order under sub-section (6) of section 9.”

¶37

11. So, in view of the object of the Act i.e. to protect the interest of the depositors, and taking note of the alleged amount of defalcation against the Appellant, which is around Rs.17,36,61,770/-, in the opinion of this Court, the permission to

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 19-Apr-2024 14:58:32

¶41

sell the scheduled properties as proposed by the Appellant, would serve the interest of the depositors. At the same time, keeping in view the provisions of the OPID Act and the restriction imposed therein for sale of the attached properties, the Appellant is permitted to sale such properties as specified in his affidavit dated 06.03.2023 (filed before this Court), with condition to deposit the entire sale consideration amount at the first instance and thereafter permission for sale will be effected by releasing those specified properties from the interim attachment.

¶42

12. Learned OPID Court is accordingly directed to accept the proposed sell consideration amount in respect of each lot of properties specified at paragraph 3 (three) in respect of the proposed buyers named at 6 (six) of the affidavit dated 06.03.2023 and that, Respondent No.2 (Hemanta Samal) shall make deposit of balance amount of Rs.4,45,000/- in respect of Serial Nos.6, 7, 8 & 9 of Lot No.1.

¶43

It is made clear that, the total deposit of consideration amount shall not be less than Rs.16,08,35,000/-. It is further made clear that, the entire consideration amount shall be deposited before the learned OPID Court, Cuttack on or before 31^st August, 2024, failing which present order shall cease to effect.

¶44

13. After entire consideration amount is deposited, necessary permission by releasing the interim order of attachment shall be issued by the learned OPID Court in respect of those specified properties.

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Page 5 of 6

¶47

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 19-Apr-2024 14:58:32

¶48

14. A copy of this order along with a copy of the affidavit dated 06.03.2023 (filed before this Court) of the Appellant shall be communicated to the learned OPID Court, Cuttack in I.A. No.6/2016 arising out of C.T. No.10/2015.

¶49

15. The appeal is disposed of with aforesaid direction.

¶50

16. An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶51

( B.P. Routray)
Judge

¶52

B.K. Barik

¶53

Signature Not Verified

¶54

Page 6 of 6

¶55

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 19-Apr-2024 14:58:32

Gayadhar Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gayadhar Jena v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Behera Vs State of Odisha

Abhimanyu Gouda Vs State of Odisha

Divisional Manager,M/S.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Rashmi Ranjan Mandal

Miku @ Mrutyunjaya Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Malati Sahoo Vs Dipanjali Sahoo

P.Chandrasekhar Achary Vs State of Odisha