Disposed¶25

Satyanarayan Panda v. Cgm,State Bank of India

Orissa HC7 Mar 2025WP(C)/14504/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court writ petition (W.P.(C) No.14504 of 2018, decided 07.03.2025 by Justice Murahari Sri Raman): petitioner sought release of claim amount per representation dated 04.10.2017 to State Bank of India; settlement contended; Court directed Bank to consider/dispose of the representation within four weeks and adhere to any settlement terms; disposed without opinion on merits; no statute or precedent cited; no quantum stated.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite party no.2/the competent authority of the Bank to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.10.2017, if not already disposed of, and, where a settlement has been arrived at, to adhere to its terms and dispose of the pending representation within four weeks; no opinion expressed on merits. ¶25

Satyanarayan Panda Vs Cgm,State Bank of India — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.14504 of 2018

¶3

Satyanarayan Panda

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Jagabandhu Sahu, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India and others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr.P.V. Balakrishna, Advocate along with Mr. Subharaj Pani, Advocate (Opposite Party No.2-Bank)

CORAM:

Order No.

04.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 07.03.2025

¶14

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶15

The writ petition has been filed the by petitioner with the following prayer(s):-

¶16

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued,

¶17

i) to direct the opposite Parties to release the claim amount as mention in the representation under Annexure-4 within a stipulated period,

¶18

ii) if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient, to make the said rule absolute,

¶19

iii) and may pass such other order/orders and to issue such other writ/writs as would afford complete relief to the petitioner,

¶20

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

¶21

Page 1 of 2

¶22

Mr. Jagabandhu Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after submission of representation dated 04.10.2017 to the Bank, a settlement has been effected with the petitioner.

¶23

Mr. P.V. Balakrishna, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 (Bank) submitted that the Bank shall act according to the settlement, if any, stated to have been made between the Bank and the petitioner. He further submitted that the Bank is at liberty to consider the representation dated 04.10.2017, if it has not already been considered.

¶24

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for both the parties, since this matter is of the year 2018, adjourning the matter further shall not enure to benefit of none. The opposite party no.2/the competent authority of the Bank shall consider the representation of the petitioner as stated to have been submitted on 04.10.2017, if not already disposed of. It deserved to be clarified that in case any settlement has been arrived at between the opposite parties and the petitioner, as contended by Mr. Jagabandhu Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Bank shall adhere to terms of such settlement and dispose of the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, if pending, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶25

The writ petition stands disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶28

Aswini Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-Charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Mar-2025 16:00:31

¶29

Page 2 of 2

Satyanarayan Panda v. Cgm,State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan Panda v. Cgm,State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Essel Mining andIN Vs Reg.Labour Commissio

M/S.Essel Mining andIN Vs Reg.Labour Commissioner

Umesh Kurrey Vs State of Odisha

Pradipta Kumar Senapati Vs Sanjay Kumar Singh, IAS

Puspa Rout Vs Sanjay Kumar Singh, IAS

Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs Sanjay Kumar Singh, IAS