Jitendra Routray Vs a.O.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., Chennai — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jitendra Routray Vs a.O.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., Chennai — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of without being entertained; sole relief is liberty to move the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack for early disposal of S.A. No. 40 of 2025 on grounds of urgency, with no opinion expressed on merits; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of; urgent certified copy to issue as per Rules.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be entertained at all, given that it involves various disputed questions of fact and the petitioner has already availed an alternative remedy (S.A. No. 40 of 2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack). +1 more

Court's answer

The Division Bench declined to entertain the writ petition because it involves various disputed questions of fact and an alternative remedy has already been availed by the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is granted liberty to approach the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack by moving an appropriate application seeking early disposal of S.A. No. 40 of 2025 on the ground of urgency, expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court, Cuttack - W.P.(C) No.18076 of 2025, decided 04.07.2025 (Coram: S.K. Sahoo and Sibo Sankar Mishra, JJ.). Petitioner Jitendra Routaray had sought, inter alia, a One Time Settlement of the loan amount, quashing of orders under Annexures 1 and 5, restoration of possession of secured assets from opposite party no.1 (Authorized Officer, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., Chennai), and expedited disposal of S.A. No. 40 of 2025 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack. Counsel (Soura Chandra Mohapatra, Senior Advocate) confined his argument to the last prayer, conceding on Court's query that no application for early hearing had been moved before the D.R.T., Cuttack. Holding that the writ petition involved various disputed questions of fact and that an alternative remedy had already been availed, the Division Bench declined to entertain it, granted liberty to approach the D.R.T., Cuttack for early disposal of S.A. No. 40 of 2025 on grounds of urgency without expressing any opinion on the merits, disposed of the writ petition, directed that pending applications stand disposed of, and ordered an urgent certified copy as per Rules.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18076 of 2025

Jitendra Routaray

….. Petitioner

Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, Senior Advocate being assisted by Mr. Mahendra Kumar Pradhan, Advocate

- versus -

Authorized Officer, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., Chennai and others

..... Opp. Parties

Mr. Jateswar Nayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate

CORAM:

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

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

04.07.2025

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

On the basis of various assertions, the petitioner Jitendra Routray in the present writ petition has attempted to explore the following reliefs:-

Signature Not Verified

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

“Under the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Courtmay be please to admit the writ petition issue a Rule Nisi, calling upon the opposite party no.1 to show cause

(i) as to why the One Time Settlement of

Page 1 of 3

loan amount shall not be made for convenience of both the parties;

(ii) as to why the orders under Annexure1 and 5 shall not be quashed.

(iii) as to why the necessary direction shall not be passed directing the opposite party no.1 to restore the possession of the secured assets to the petitioner;

(iv) as to why the S.A. No.40 of 2025 shall not be disposed of within a short period as deem fit by this Hon’ble Court.

However, Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has confined his argument only to the prayer no.(iv). In that regard, Mr. Mohapatra has submitted that urgency involved in the matter, and therefore the S.A. pending before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal needs to be disposed of expeditiously. However, on the query from the Court, he has fairly submitted that no such application has been moved by the petitioner before the D.R.T., Cuttack praying for early hearing of the S.A.

Since the writ petition involves various disputed questions of fact and an alternative remedy has already been availed by the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. At the same time, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack by moving appropriate application seeking early disposal of S.A. No. 40 of 2025 on the ground of urgency, as has been contended by him before this Court. We extend the said liberty without

Page 2 of 3

Sipun

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

( S. S. Mishra)

Judge

Page 3 of 3