Disposed¶26

Paresh Kumar Parida v. Chairman Life Insurance Corporation Housing Finance Ltd., Mumbai

Orissa HC4 Jul 2025WP(C)/17934/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; W.P.(C) No.17934 of 2025; decided 04.07.2025; bench: Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra. Keywords: SARFAESI Act 2002; sale notice 30.04.2025; Annexure-6; Article 226; alternative remedy; section 17 SARFAESI; OTS / one-time settlement; borrower right of redemption; Section 13(8); Rule 9(1) 2002 Rules; PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank (2024) 6 SCC 579; CELIR LLP v. Bafna Motors (2024) 2 SCC 1; writ petition disposed of with liberty to pursue statutory remedy; LIC Housing Finance; authorized officer; Collector Khorda.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the sale notice dated 30.04.2025 and for a direction to consider OTS benefit was not entertained; petitioner granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedy available under the law. ¶26

Paresh Kumar Parida Vs Chairman Life Insurance… — Banking and Recovery | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer to quash the sale notice dated 30.04.2025 and for a direction to consider OTS benefit was not entertained; petitioner granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedy available under the law.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable, or should be entertained by the High Court, when an alternative remedy is available under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

Taking into account the ratio in Bafna Motors (with PHR Invent Educational Society), the Court held that where an alternative remedy is available under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, it would not entertain the writ petition; the petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedy available under the law.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition stands disposed of, and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (W.P.(C) No.17934 of 2025, decided 04.07.2025) by Paresh Kumar Parida against Life Insurance Corporation Housing Finance Ltd. and others, challenging a sale notice dated 30.04.2025 issued under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and seeking a direction to consider his OTS proposal. The Division Bench (S.K. Sahoo and Sibo Sankar Mishra, JJ.), relying on PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, (2024) 6 SCC 579, and CELIR LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., (2024) 2 SCC 1, held that the High Court should not entertain writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution where an alternative remedy is available under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The writ petition was not entertained and stood disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy available under the law; pending applications stood disposed of. The passage quoted from Bafna Motors regarding curtailment of the borrower's right of redemption upon publication of the auction notice under Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules is a Supreme Court holding reproduced in the order, not a holding of this Court.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17934 of 2025

¶2

Paresh Kumar Parida ….. Petitioner

¶3

Mr. Rabi Narayan Panda, Advocate

¶4

- versus -

¶5

1. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation Housing Finance Ltd., Mumbai

¶6

2. Authorized Officer, Corporate Office, Life Insurance Corporation Ltd., Mumbai 3. Authorized Officer under SARFAESI Act, 2002 Life Insurance Corporation Ltd., IPICOL House, Bhubaneswar

¶7

4. Area Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Housing Finance Ltd., Bhubaneswar

¶8

Signature Not Verified

¶9

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 08-Jul-2025 17:01:04

¶10

5. Collector-cumDistrict Magistrate, Khorda

¶11

..... Opp. Parties

¶12

Mr. Jateswar Nayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate for opp. party no.5

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

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

¶15

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

ORDER Order No. 04.07.2025

¶18

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

¶19

The petitioner, Paresh Kumar Parida has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to quash the sale notice dated 30.04.2025 under Annexure-6 for sale of immovable properties under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 issued by the opp. party with a further prayer for a direction to consider the grievance of the petitioner under Annexure-7 to grant him benefit of OTS deducting interest as much as possible within a stipulated period.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

“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

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

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 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.”

¶25

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

¶26

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶27

Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed

¶28

of.

¶29

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

¶30

( S. S. Mishra)

¶31

Judge