This order disposed of a writ petition seeking release of fixed deposit amounts and interest from a bank. The court applied a recent judgment (Bichitrananda Lenka) concerning deposit insurance settlement and directed the liquidator to settle claims within six months.
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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Oct-2024 20:06:19 I N T HE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22028 of 2012
Srinibas Panda and Anr.
…. Petitioner Represent e d By Adv. Mr. Manoj Ku. Mohanty
-versus-
Reserve Bank of India and Anr. Opposite Parties Represent e d By Adv. Mr. Kalyan Pattnaik (f or O.P.1) Mr. P.R. Dash (f or O.P.2)
CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order No.
ORDER 24.09.2024
Page 1 of 4
// 2 //
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Oct-2024 20:06:19
Chand r asekharpur Branch along with the interest accrue d out of the same within a stipulate d period s as are and pa s s such other or further order or orde r deeme d just and proper.”
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petiti o ners submits that this Co u rt has earlier decided the similar issue vide the order dated 1 1.09.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1 5690 of 2015 ( Bichitrananda Lenka–vrs.- Union of India & Ors.). Hence, he submits t h at this Writ Petition may be disp o sed of in the light of the o r der passed in the case of Bichitrananda Lenka (supra).
5 . Both the l e arned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 and learned cou n sel for the Opposite Party No.2 submit that they have n o objection, if this matter is dispo s ed of in the light of the o r der passed in the case of Bichitrananda Lenka (supra).
6 . On perusa l of the records and the order pass e d in the case of Bichitrananda Lenka (supra), it appears that similar issue has already b een decided by this Court in t h e said order which was disposed of on 11.09.2024. The ord e ring portion of the said order is extracted as follows.
“ xx x x xx xx 12. N o w, vide the letter Ref.No.DICGC/C S D/812/ 05.02 . 427/2018-19 dated 15.06.2018, the D ICGC has a dvised that the allocated amount against
Page 2 of 4
// 3 //
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Oct-2024 20:06:19
depos i t’s insurance be used to settleeligible deposit insur a nce claims. The relevant portion of t h e letter is pro d uced hereinbelow:
“ 2 . In this connection, we advise having settl e d a n amount of 15,16,59,365.17 (Rupees Fifte e n c r ore sixteen lakh fifty nine thousand thr e e h u ndred sixty five and paise seventeen only) t o 6 4 46 claims towards the eligible deposit i n surance claims, as indicated in the stateme n t ' A ' enclosed and you are advised to ma k e p a yment to the eligible depositors from t h e liquid funds available with you. Further, a s i n dicated in Statement 'A', it may be not e d t h at the claims in respect of dormant a/c o n a c count of reconciliation difference will not b e p a id by the Corporation.
3 . It may be noted that aforesaid sanction e d a m ount is to be paid out of liquid fun d s a v ailable with you which should be strict l y utilized for the specific purpose of payment t o e l igible depositor. ”
13. In light of the aforementioned settleme n t, it is hereb y directed that the liquidator or official appoi n ted shall allocate the specified amount towar d s the settlement of deposit claims. T h e funds shall be distributed proportionately am o ng the eligib l e depositors in accordance wit h their respe c tive claims. Additionally, a detailed r e cord of the d i stribution must be maintained an d made available for review to ensure transpare n cy and accou n tability in the settlement process. 14. Th e Opp. Parties may also consider mak i ng a de novo application to the DICGC for an e x tended settle m ent schema. In response to fi nancial insta b ility and increasing concerns about deposit safety , the DICGC has significantly rai s ed the
Page 3 of 4
// 4 //
Signature Not Verified
7. In such vi e w of the matter, this Writ Petitio n is disposed of directing t he liquidator or the appointed of f icial to look after the set t lement of Petitioners’ claims in a reasonable timeframe; p referably within a period of six m onths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge
Sumitra
Page 4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition regarding deposit release should be decided by analogy with the order in the similar case of Bichitrananda Lenka.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bichitrananda Lenka v. Union of India & Ors.Followed¶4
W.P.(C) No. 15690 of 2015 (Bichitrananda Lenka–vrs.- Union of India & Ors.)
Srinibas Panda and Anr.
Reserve Bank of India and Anr.
S.K. Panigrahi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S.K. Panigrahi
Parties & counsel
