Disposed¶29

Loknath Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Jul 2024WP(C)/6844/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lokanath Sahu vs Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Titilagarh Branch; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; W.P.(C) 6844/2015; order dated 09.07.2024 by Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi; PMRY loan; return of original educational certificate kept with bank; Court's view that PMRY Scheme does not require deposit of certificates as security; writ petition disposed of without adjudication for want of evidence; aggrieved party free to approach appropriate court.

What did the court decide?

Considering the claim and counter-claim of the parties, the Court held that adjudication of the dispute (the lis) would require evidence, and that it was therefore unable to decide the matter raised in the writ petition. ¶26

Loknath Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct the Opposite Party (Indian Overseas Bank, Titilagarh Branch) to release the petitioner's original documents, including his original educational certificate, given his claim that he has repaid the loan taken under the PMRY Scheme. +1 more

¶16

Ratio / Principle

¶26

Key takeaways

The Court held that the PMRY Scheme does not contemplate any deposition of educational certificates with the Bank for sanctioning loans under the Scheme, and consequently the Bank cannot ask for such documents at the time of sanctioning the loan.obiter¶25
The Court stated that if any of the parties is aggrieved, it is free to approach the appropriate court for deciding the case by leading proper evidence.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; W.P.(C) No. 6844 of 2015; order dated 09.07.2024; coram: Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi. Lokanath Sahu sought a direction to the Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Titilagarh Branch, to release his original documents, including his original educational certificate, submitted to the Bank against a loan under the Prime Minister Rojgar Yojana (PMRY) which he claimed to have repaid. The Court held that the PMRY Scheme does not contemplate deposition of educational certificates with the Bank for sanctioning loans under the Scheme, and that the Bank cannot ask for such documents at the time of sanctioning. However, considering the claim and counter-claim of the parties, the Court found that adjudication would require evidence, declared itself unfit to decide the lis, and disposed of the writ petition without adjudication, stating that any aggrieved party is free to approach an appropriate court for deciding the case by leading proper evidence. No relief was granted.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 6844 of 2015

¶3

Lokanath Sahu

¶4

..…... Petitioner

¶5

Mr. U.K. Samal, Adv.

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Titilagarh Branch .…...... Opposite Parties Mr. Gurudutta Kar, Adv.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER

09.07.2024

Order No.

This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to the Opposite Party to release his original documents including the original educational certificate, as he has repaid the loan under the Prime Minister Rojgar Yojana (PMRY).

¶17

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that many similarly placed persons had kept their educational certificates

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Signature Not Verified as security at the time of sanctioning of the loan under the Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication PMRY Scheme. The Petitioner has also filed an affidavit stating Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 12-Jul-2024 19:33:27

¶20

that the Petitioner had availed the loan under the PMRY Scheme

¶21

¶22

from the Indian Overseas Bank by submitting the original H.S.E. Certificate with the Bank. He further submits that the Bank has the habit of taking such certificates while granting loan under the PMRY Scheme.

¶23

Learned counsel for the Opposite Party/Bank submits that the Bank does not have any policy for keeping the certificate against the loan sanctioned under the PMRY Scheme. In fact, the Scheme does not require to keep the certificate with the Bank as security against any loan provided under the PMRY Scheme. Hence, the claim made by the Petitioner regarding the security provision for keeping the educational certificate of the Petitioner with the Bank does not arise.

¶24

Learned counsel for the Opposite Party/Bank further submits that the Petitioner has not submitted any document for the purpose of advancement of the loan.

¶25

In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that since the PMRY Scheme does not contemplate any such deposition of certificate with the Bank for sanctioning the loan under the Scheme, the Bank cannot ask for such documents at the time of

¶26

sanctioning of the loan. However, considering the claim and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU counter claim by the parties, this Court is totally unfit to decide Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 12-Jul-2024 19:33:27 the lis , as it requires evidence. If any of the parties is aggrieved,

¶27

¶28

it is free to approach the appropriate court for deciding the case by leading proper evidence.

¶29

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶30

( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶31

Judge

¶32

Murmu

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Cuttack Date: 12-Jul-2024 19:33:27

Loknath Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Loknath Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhashyam Mohanty Vs Omfed Ltd. and Ors.

Laxmidhar Biswal Vs State and Ors.

Pramod Ku.Behera Vs Chairman-Cum-Md

Arun Ku.Nayak Vs C.E.O.,Cesu

Kunj Bihari Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Sanjaya Kumar Mallick Vs Regional Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Khurda