Disposed¶21

Sangram Keshari Mishra v. Chairman,Odisha Gramya Bank

Orissa HC7 Jul 2025WP(C)/2433/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha Gramya Bank; one time settlement (OTS); loan account; direction to furnish documents; writ petition disposed of without relief; eight adjournments; National Lok Adalat 17.03.2024; outstanding dues Rs.9,29,280/-; OTS figure Rs.5,50,000/-; 2019 dues Rs.7,00,000/-; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; S.K. Sahoo; S.S. Mishra; order dated 07.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

In view of the state of affairs (eight adjournments, non-appearance, and no deposit after the 14.05.2022 order), the Court was not inclined to accept the prayer made in the writ petition. ¶20

Sangram Keshari Mishra Vs Chairman,Odisha Gramya Bank — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2433 of 2019

¶2

Sangram Keshari Mishra ….

¶3

Petitioner

¶4

Mr.Niranjan Panda, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Chairman, Odisha Gramya Bank, Pokhariput, …. Opp. Parties Bhubaneswar and another

¶7

Mr.Aurobinda Mohanty,Advocate (for the opp.party- Bank)

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. MISHRA ORDER

¶10

Order No.

¶11

07.07.2025

¶12

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

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Sangram Keshari Mishra seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to furnish all the documents as sought for by him and to direct for one time settlement of his loan account.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for an adjournment.

¶15

It appears that the matter has already suffered eight adjournments.

¶16

When the matter was listed on 14.05.2022, learned counsel for the opposite party-Bank made a submission that in the year 2019, the outstanding dues against the petitioner was Rs.7,00,000/- (rupees seven lakhs) and on negotiation, it was settled that the petitioner shall pay Rs.5,50,000/- (rupees five lakhs fifty thousand) under the OTS but the petitioner did not

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

pay a single pie thereafter and the outstanding dues became Rs.9,29,280/- (rupees nine lakh twenty nine thousand two hundred eight). On that date, no one appeared for the petitioner. The matter has also been listed in the National Lok Adalat on 17.03.2024 and since no body appeared for the petitioner, on the submission made by the learned counsel for the opposite party-Bank, the matter was directed to be placed before the regular Bench.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has received instruction that the petitioner is ready and willing to settle the loan account. However, after the order was passed by this Court on 14.05.2022, no amount has been deposited with the Bank.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid state of affairs, we are not inclined to accept the prayer made in the writ petition. However, it is open to the petitioner to negotiate with the opposite partyBank and settle the loan account amicably.

¶21

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶22

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

( S.K. Sahoo)

Judge

(S.S. Mishra)

Judge