Dismissed

Saroj Dash v. the State Bank of India, Phulbani Branch,Kandhamal

Orissa HC11 Jul 2025WP(C)/12981/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the seizure of land and building by a bank, holding that Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act provides the exclusive alternative remedy, rendering writ jurisdiction inapt per Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stand dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedy available under the law.

Saroj Dash Vs the State Bank of India, Phulbani… — Banking and Recovery | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 12981 of 2025

¶3

Saroj Dash

¶4

….. Petitioner(s)

¶5

Mr. Bhawani Sankar Panigrahi, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

The State Bank of India, Phulbani Branch, Kandhamal and others

¶8

..... Opp. Party(s)

¶9

Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Advocate O.P.Nos.1 & 2 Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate for O.P.No.4

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

02 .

11.07.2025

This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opp. party-Bank and learned counsel for opposite party no.4.

¶18

The petitioner, Saroj Dash has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the opposite party-Bank to release the land in question and the building from seizure and settle the loan account of the petitioner under One Time Settlement fixing suitable installments enabling the

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

petitioner to close the account.

¶21

In case of PHR Invent Educational Society -Vrs.UCO Bank and others reported in (2024) 6 Supreme Court Cases 579 so also in the case of CELIR LLP -Vrs.Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and others reported in (2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1 , it has been held that the High Court should not entertain the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when alternative remedy is available under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶22

In the case of Bafna Motors (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

¶23

“110.3. In accordance with the unamended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset was available till the sale or transfer of such secured asset. In other words, the borrower's right of redemption did not stand terminated on the date of the auction-sale of the secured asset itself and remained alive till the transfer was completed in favour of the auction-purchaser, by registration of the sale certificate and delivery of possession of the secured asset. However, the amended provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, make it clear that the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset stands extinguished thereunder on the very date of publication of the notice for public auction under Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules. In effect, the right of redemption available to the borrower under the present statutory regime is drastically curtailed and would be available only till the date of publication of the

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

notice under Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules and not till the completion of the sale or transfer of the secured asset in favour of the auction-purchaser.”

¶26

After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and taking into account the ratio laid down in the case of Bafna Motors (supra), we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedy available under the law.

¶27

Accordingly, the writ petition stand dismissed.

¶28

( S.K. Sahoo)

¶29

Judge

¶30

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶31

Swarna/Ashok

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Jul-2025 18:01:46

¶34

Page 3 of 3

Saroj Dash v. the State Bank of India, Phulbani Branch,Kandhamal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Dash v. the State Bank of India, Phulbani Branch,Kandhamal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Management of Sanjay Memorial Institute of Technology Vs State of Orissa

Chairman Cum Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, New Delhi Vs Sanjibani Raha

Sangram Keshari Mishra Vs Chairman,Odisha Gramya Bank

Sridhar Swain Vs State of Odisha

Ajaya Kumar Churiwal Vs a.O., Icici Bank Ltd., Bbsr

M/S Mohapatra Industries, Nayagarh Vs the A.O. Cum Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Nayagarh