Disposed

P. Bhabani Sankar Patra v. Uco Bank

Orissa HC18 Jun 2025/11492/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to execute sale deed and hand over possession of property. Court held that since Debt Recovery Tribunal already quashed the auction, petitioner is entitled to return of deposited money with interest within 15 days, with penal interest for delay.

What did the court decide?

Bank to return deposited money with applicable fixed deposit interest within 15 days; penal amount of Rs. 1000/- per day for delay.

P. Bhabani Sankar Patra Vs Uco Bank — Landlord and Tenant | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.11492 of 2025

¶2

P. Bhabani Sankar Patra

¶3

..... Petitioner Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, Sr. Advocate along with Associates

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Uco Bank & Ors.

¶6

..... Opposite Parties Mr. B. B. Swain, Advocate

¶7

Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. K. PANIGRAHI

Order ORDER

No. 18.06.2025

01.

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶14

2. The Petitioner, by filing this Writ Petition, has sought for a direction from this Court to the Opposite Party –Bank to execute the sale deed and hand over full possession of the entire four rooms of the building in addition to physical possession given on 05.05.2018.

¶15

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite Party-Bank issued an auction sale notice under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. After issuance of the sale

¶16

Page 1 of 3.

¶17

certificate, the Opposite Party handed over 3 rooms out of 4 rooms to the Petitioner and one of the rooms is kept under the custody of the bank pending execution of the sale deed.

¶18

4. He further submits that there was a dispute pertaining to the auction of the property by the third party alleging fraudulent mortgage of the property to the Bank. In this respect, W.P.(C) No.9250 of 2018 and CRLMP No.296 of 2019 were pursued. But, this Court did not interfere with it and the auction stands settled in favour of the Petitioner. However, the bank has not registered the auction property in favour of the Petitioner, followed by the auction and its corresponding issue of sale certificate. Hence, this Writ Petition.

¶19

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

6. Considering the submissions made and on going through the averments made in this Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that since the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack has already quashed the auction sale held on 29.08.2016, the Petitioner is entitled to get return of the money deposited by him along with the interest which is applicable to the fixed depositors pertaining to the similar period, within a period of 15 days from the date of presentation of a copy of this order, failing which

¶21

Page 2 of 3.

¶22

the Bank shall pay penal amount of Rs.1000/- per day to the Petitioner.

¶23

7. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶24

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶25

Judge

¶26

Gitanjali

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 19-Jun-2025 11:31:38

¶29

Page 3 of 3.

P. Bhabani Sankar Patra v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Bhabani Sankar Patra v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangala Prasad Mohanty Vs Prof.Pravat Kumar Roul, v.C, Ouat

Narayan Shukla Vs Subha Sarma,Ias

Dr.Sarmil Panda Vs Bijay Kumar Khandayat Ray,Secretary,Opsc,Cuttack

Naresh Chandra Mohanta @ Naresh Mohanta Vs State of Odisha

Sribachha Pradhan @ Bachhia @ Sribatsa Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Subash Chandra Mirdha Vs State of Odisha