Dismissed

Niranjan Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Sept 2024WP(C)/18805/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants the amendment of cause title in an IA and finally disposes of the Writ Petition where the petitioner sought direction to release/freeze an impounded bank account in a consumer dispute. The court directed the bank to defreeze the account by holding Rs. 10,000/- and allowed frequent transactions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's bank account was directed to be defrozen by holding Rs. 10,000/- to allow frequent transactions.

Niranjan Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 18805 of 2024

¶3

Niranjan Nayak ..…... Petitioner(s)

¶4

Mr. A.K. Das, Adv.

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Ors. ………. Opposite Parties

¶7

Mr. Tuna Sahu, Adv..

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER

12.09.2024

Order No.

I.A. No.11951 of 2024

¶15

This matter is taken up through a hybrid arrangement.

¶16

Heard.

¶17

This I.A. has been filed for amendment of the cause title of the Writ Petition.

¶18

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the averments made in the Interim Application, the amendment of cause title is allowed.

¶19

Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.

¶20

W.P.(C) No.18805 of 2024

¶21

Heard.

¶22

Signature Not Verified 2. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication from this Court to the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 to Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 17-Sep-2024 18:37:05

¶24

¶25

release/defreeze the account of the Petitioner bearing Account No. 7382594087 of Indian Bank.

¶26

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite Party No.6 had advertisement for selling of G/2 spare parts of Royal Enfield Motorcycle through Online platform i.e. OLX website. The Opposite Party No.7 had purchased the said parts on payment of Rs.21,000/- to the Opposite Party No.6, which was duly received by him.

¶27

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that after receiving the above noted parts, the Opposite Party No.7 raised disputed with Opposite Party No.6 that he has not received the same model parts as per the advertisement made in OLX website by the Opposite Party No.6 and lodged an F.I.R. before the Opposite Party No.4/Inspector-in-Charge, City C Division Police Station, Jamnagar. He further submits that without any investigation the Opposite Party No.4 directed the Bank to freeze the above noted bank account of the Petitioner, which only Rs.6000/- had been credited from the account of the Opposite Party No.6.

¶28

In such view of the matter, the Opposite Party/Bank is Signature Not Verifieddirected to defreeze the aforesaid account of the Petitioner by Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication holding Rs.10,000/- and allowed the Petitioner to transact his Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 17-Sep-2024 18:37:05 account frequently.

¶29

¶30

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶31

( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶32

Judge

¶33

Murmu

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 17-Sep-2024 18:37:05

Niranjan Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bichitrananda Lenka Vs Union of India

Akshya K.Pradhan Vs Cesu and Anr.

Braja Kishore Rout Vs Central Bank of India,Jajpur

Santosh Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Odisha

Dibakar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Kedarnath Tarai Vs Collector and District Magistrate, Puri