Umakanta Behera Vs Allahabad Bank

“It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court be kind enough to issue writ/writs, direction/directions to the O.Ps. directing them to re-consider the proposal for settlement given by the petitioner and after adjustment of the deposited amount allow the petitioner to pay the balance and communicate their decision before taking any coercive action under the Act pursuant to notice in Annexure-4 and pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper.

¶20

And for which act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

From the order-sheet, it appears that this Court while issuing notice vide order dated 05.02.2015, as an interim measure (Misc. Case No.1388 of 2015) directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner till disposal of the writ petition subject to Petitioner’s depositing a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in two equal instalments within a period of six weeks from the date of the said order before the concerned authority. There is no document on record to show that the said interim order has been complied with by the Petitioner. It further appears that, the matter was listed on 12.11.2016, 11.02.2017, 08.04.2017, 13.05.2017 and 08.07.2017 before the Lok Adalat. But, none represented the Petitioner on those dates.

¶23

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Bank relies upon the decision in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Arvindra Electronics Private Limited , reported in (2023) 1 SCC 540 and submits that extension of time to make payment for settlement of the loan under the OTS Scheme should not be granted in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is his submission that the Petitioner had moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.24085 of 2013, which was disposed of on 06.11.2013 with the following directions.

¶24

“ 06.11.2013

¶25

The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceeding initiated under the SARFAESI Act to recover a sum of Rs.12,32,450/-

¶26

According to the petitioner, he is liable to pay only Rs.7,50,000/-(rupees seven lakh fifty thousand) towards full and final settlement.

¶27

We are of the view that the writ Court is not an appropriate forum for settling the

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

disputed liability arising out of a commercial contract particularly when statutory alternative remedy is available under Section 17-of the SARFAESI Act.

¶30

However, since the petitioner has offered to pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-(rupees seven lakh fifty thousand) in instalments without prejudice to his rights and remedies, which is a substantial part of the amount claimed by the Bank, we are of the view that no prejudice will be caused to the Bank if the petitioner is permitted to pay the said amount in four monthly instalments commencing 9^th December, 2013 and ending 9th March, 2014.

¶31

The petitioner will be at liberty to make representation to the Bank on or before 15^th March, 2014 with regard to the repayment of rest of the amount. The Bank may take a decision on the said application as per law and, if aggrieved, the petitioner can take his statutory remedy as above.

¶32

It the Petitioner fails to carry out the above undertaking, the petition shall be treated to have been dismissed.

¶33

In the event the petitioner carries out above undertaking, the Bank may not take any coercive measure till 15^th March, 2014 and till the Bank decides the application of the petitioner.

¶34

If the Bank is aggrieved by the above order, it will be at liberty to move this Court.

¶35

The petitioner is disposed of.”

¶36

(Emphasis supplied)

¶37

The Petitioner at para-8 of the writ petition admitted to have not complied with the aforesaid direction of this Court within the time stipulated.

¶38

Page 3 of 4

¶39

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Bank, therefore, submits that the writ petition is not entertainable.

¶40

In view of the above, this Court upon perusal of the writ petition and the case law cited as well as in the facts and circumstances stated above, is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

¶41

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶42

Interim order dated 05.02.2015 passed in Misc. Case No.1388 of 2015 stands vacated.

¶43

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶44

(S.K. Mishra)

¶45

Kanhu

¶46

Judge

¶47

Signature Not Verified

¶48

Digitally Signed Signed by: KANHU BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 05-Feb-2025 17:36:40

¶49

Page 4 of 4

Umakanta Behera v. Allahabad Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umakanta Behera v. Allahabad Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Jambubati Filing Station Vs Punjab National Bank

Pradip Kumar Dash Vs the Authorised Officer, Axis Bank Ltd.,Khurda

Rasida Bibi Vs Regional Manager, Union Bank of India

Influx Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chief Manager State Bank of India,Bhubaneswar

Kalpataru Samal Vs a.O.-Cum-B.M.,State Bank of India

M/S Benzfab Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Vs M/S.Edac Engineering Ltd.