Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bbsr Vs Uco Bank, Asset Management Branch, Bbsr

Heard Mr. Goutam Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Swain, learned counsel for the opposite partyBank.

¶15

The petitioner M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Bhubaneswar has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:-

¶16

“In the circumstances stated above, the

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

¶19

a) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Bank and Recovery Officer to disclose and honour the subsisting leasehold rights of the petitioner in all proceedings and sale notices, as required under Rule 8(7) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002;

¶20

AND

¶21

b) Issue a writ or direction restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner or interfering with the lawful possession and operation of its Retail Outlets situated on the leased premises during the term of the lease;

¶22

AND

¶23

c) Declare that the Lease Deeds dated 06.09.1993 and 03.10.2002 (Annexure-1) executed in favour of the petitioner are binding on the mortgagee Bank executed on dated 12/01/2005 and shall remain valid

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

until their respective expiry/ evicted in due process of law and shall further quash the warrant of attachment dated 09/05/2025 (Annexure-5) issued by the Recovery Officer i.e opposite party No.2;

¶26

AND

¶27

d) Pass such further writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

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

¶29

Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the Recovery Officer under Annexure-5, which is the warrant of attachment of immovable property under Rule 48 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

¶30

Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the opposite party-Bank submits that in view of section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereafter, „1993 Act‟), the petitioner has got

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

alternative remedy.

¶33

Section 30 of the 1993 Act is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶34

“ Section 30. Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer .- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 29, any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.

¶35

(2) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, and after making such inquiry as it deems fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order made by the Recovery Officer in exercise of his powers under sections 25 to 28 (both inclusive).”

¶36

Since the intervention application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Recovery Officer vide order 23.06.2023 under Annexure-6, inter alia, stating that he does not have any jurisdiction to entertain such application, the remedy is available to the petitioner under section 30 of the 1993 Act and it is open to the petitioner to resort to the said remedy.

¶37

Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate submits

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

that section 30-A of the 1993 Act regarding the deposit of amount of debt due for filing appeal against orders of the Recovery Officer may be a problem for the petitioner, who is neither a borrower nor a guarantor and therefore, the said provision is not applicable to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner will file an appeal under section 30 of the 1993 Act before the learned Tribunal within a period of ten days.

¶40

In view of such submission, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the DRT by filing an appeal. If such an appeal is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶41

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶42

( S.K. Sahoo)

¶43

Judge

¶44

( S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶45

RKM

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

Digitally Signed Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 17-Jul-2025 18:45:27

¶48

Page 5 of 5

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bbsr v. Uco Bank, Asset Management Branch, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bbsr v. Uco Bank, Asset Management Branch, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Samuel Ekka

Arefun Nisha Vs the Authorised Officer, Icici Bank Ltd., Kolkata

Sudarshan Kar Vs Union of India

Sreedhar Kumar Sen Vs State of Orissa

M/S. Attal Plastics, Hyderabad Vs State of Odisha

Madan Mohan Mallik Vs M/S.Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd, Bengaluru