Disposed¶32

Bajaj Finance Ltd., Bbsr v. Union of India

Orissa HC22 Apr 2025WP(C)/4107/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PMLA intimation vs provisional attachment; SARFAESI-mortgaged property; Enforcement Directorate Bhubaneswar; no cause of action; liberty to pursue remedies; Bajaj Finance Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.; W.P.(C) No.4107 of 2024; Orissa High Court; Complaint Case No.14 of 2023; writ disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to take appropriate steps as per law if aggrieved by any order passed by the Enforcement Directorate, Bhubaneswar/Opposite Party No.1; no cause of action found against the Petitioner. ¶32

Bajaj Finance Ltd., Bbsr Vs Union of India — Money Laundering | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 19.10.2023 issued by the Enforcement Directorate, Bhubaneswar is a provisional attachment order giving rise to a cause of action for the Petitioner, or merely an intimation of initiation of PMLA proceedings against Opposite Party No.2.

¶31

Court's answer

The order dated 19.10.2023 is an intimation, not an attachment order.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Since the order dated 19.10.2023 is an intimation and not an attachment order, no cause of action arises against the present Petitioner.

¶31

Key takeaways

The Petitioner is granted liberty to take appropriate steps as per law if it is aggrieved by any order passed by the Enforcement Directorate, Bhubaneswar/Opposite Party No.1.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition disposed of (Orissa High Court, Cuttack; Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.; order dated 22.04.2025). Bajaj Finance Ltd. Bhubaneswar challenged a purported provisional attachment order dated 19.10.2023 of the Enforcement Directorate, Bhubaneswar Zone restraining it from dealing with a property mortgated in its favour. Background: loan of Rs.2,81,25,000/- availed in 2016 by the proprietor of Ali Agency with his son Shri Jay Jajodia; account became NPA on 04.10.2017; SARFAESI measures followed, including notice dated 06.11.2017 under Section 13(2), possession taken on 21.02.2018, and an order dated 28.02.2022 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack under Section 14, under challenge before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack in S.A. Nos.18 and 62 of 2022. The Enforcement Directorate submitted that the order dated 19.10.2023 was not an attachment order but only an intimation that PMLA Complaint Case No.14 of 2023 dated 18.08.2023 had been initiated against Opposite Party No.2. Held: the order dated 19.10.2023 is an intimation, not an attachment order; consequently no cause of action arises against the Petitioner. Writ Petition disposed of with liberty to take appropriate steps as per law if aggrieved by any order of the Enforcement Directorate, Bhubaneswar.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4107 of 2024

¶2

Bajaj Finance Ltd. Bhubaneswar …. Petitioner(s) Represented By Adv. Mr. Ramachandra Panigrahi

¶3

-versus-

¶4

Union of India & Ors.

¶5

…. Opposite Party(s) Represented By Sr. Adv. Mr. B Bhuyan Along with associates Mr. G. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Along with associates

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

ORDER

Order

22.04.2025

No.

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶14

2. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the provisional attachment order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the Enforcement Directorate, Bhubaneswar Zone restraining the Petitioner to deal with the property mortgaged in its favour.

¶15

3. Heard.

¶16

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the year 1997, Smt. Manju Jajodia, wife of the Opposite Party

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

No.2 purchased a land and developed the said land into a two storied residential building. After obtaining appropriate permission from the CDA and sold the said property to the Opposite Party No.2 being the proprietor of Ali Agency, who along with his son Shri Jay Jajodia, availed loan from the Petitioner in the year 2016 to the tune of Rs.2,81,25,000/-, but failed to pay the installments on due date and the account became NPA on 04.10.2017. The Petitioner initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and issued notice dated 06.11.2017 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The Borrower, despite receipt of the said notice, did not pay the dues and consequently, the possession of the property was taken on 21.02.2018. On 28.02.2022, the Petitioner obtained an order from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 which is under challenge before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack in S.A. Nos.18 and 62 of 2022. On 07.02.2022, the Petitioner received a letter from the Opposite Party No.1/Enforcement Directorate, Bhubaneswar asking the Petitioner to furnish relevant documents pertaining to the property. The Petitioner replied on 21.03.2022 in which the Petitioner brought to

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

the notice of the Opposite Party No.1 that the property has been mortgaged to the Petitioner since 2016. There were various other correspondences between the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.1, but, on 04.10.2022 and 18.11.2022, the Opposite Party No.1 called the authorized officer to produce original documents and the officer of the Petitioner on 22.11.2022 and 30.11.2022 attended the office of the Opposite Party No.1 along with original documents, which were seen and returned to the officer on the same day.

¶23

5. He further submits that after almost a year, the Opposite Party No.1 passed the provisional attachment order dated 19.10.2023 restraining the Petitioner to deal with the property, which is duly mortgaged to the Petitioner and the same was already attached by the Petitioner by virtue of Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and some of the properties have already been sold through proper process. The said order was passed without following due process of the law and the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. He further submits that the property which has already been mortgaged cannot be terms as proceeds of crime and cannot prevail over the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶24

Page 3 of 5

¶25

// 4 //

¶26

6. He further submits that after almost a year, the Opposite Party No.1 passed the provisional attachment order dated 19.10.2023 restraining the Petitioner to deal with the property, which is duly mortgaged to the Petitioner and the same was already attached by the Petitioner by virtue of Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and some of the properties have already been sold through proper process. The said order was passed without following due process of the law and the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. He further submits that the property which has already been mortgaged cannot be terms as proceeds of crime and cannot prevail over the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶27

7. Learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, Bhubaneswar/Opposite Party No.1 submits that order dated 19.10.2023 is not an attachment order, instead it is an intimation to the Petitioner/Company that Complaint Case No.14 of 2023 dated 18.08.2023 has been initiated against the Opposite Party No.2 intimating the Petitioner/Company that the PMLA case has been initiated against the Opposite Party No.2.

¶28

8. Considering the facts and submissions made and since the order dated 19.10.2023 is an intimation not an

¶29

Page 4 of 5

¶30

// 5 //

¶31

attachment order, hence, no cause of action arises against the present Petitioner. However, the Petitioner is granted liberty to take appropriate steps as per law, if the Petitioner/Company is aggrieved by any order passed by the Enforcement Directorate, Bhubaneswar/Opposite Party No.1.

¶32

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶33

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶34

Sumitra

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 24-Apr-2025 19:12:11

¶37

Page 5 of 5

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Provisional attachment order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the Enforcement Directorate, Bhubaneswar Zone restraining the Petitioner from dealing with the property mortgaged in its favour (later characterized by the Court as an intimation, not an attachment order).¶14
Enforcement Directorate, Bhubaneswar Zone · 19.10.2023
Prior proceeding
In 1997, Smt. Manju Jajodia, wife of Opposite Party No.2, purchased land.¶16
Prior proceeding
The said property was sold to Opposite Party No.2, proprietor of Ali Agency.¶19
Prior proceeding
Opposite Party No.2, along with his son Shri Jay Jajodia, availed a loan of Rs.2,81,25,000/- from the Petitioner in 2016; installments defaulted and the account became NPA on 04.10.2017.¶19
Prior proceeding
Petitioner initiated SARFAESI proceedings and issued notice dated 06.11.2017 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.¶19
Prior proceeding
Possession of the property was taken on 21.02.2018.¶19
Prior proceeding
On 28.02.2022, the Petitioner obtained an order from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.¶19
Prior proceeding
The Section 14 order is under challenge before the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack in S.A. Nos.18 and 62 of 2022.¶19
Prior proceeding
On 07.02.2022, the Petitioner received a letter from the Opposite Party No.1/Enforcement Directorate, Bhubaneswar asking it to furnish relevant documents pertaining to the property.¶19
Prior proceeding
The Petitioner replied to the Enforcement Directorate on 21.03.2022.¶19
Prior proceeding
The Petitioner informed the Enforcement Directorate that the property has been mortgaged to it since 2016.¶22
Prior proceeding
On 04.10.2022 and 18.11.2022, the Opposite Party No.1 called the Petitioner's authorized officer to produce original documents.¶22
Prior proceeding
The Petitioner's officer attended the ED office on 22.11.2022 and 30.11.2022 with original documents, which were seen and returned the same day.¶22
Prior proceeding
As submitted by learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, Complaint Case No.14 of 2023 dated 18.08.2023 (PMLA case) was initiated against Opposite Party No.2, and the Petitioner/Company was intimated of the same.¶27

Bajaj Finance Ltd., Bbsr v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Finance Ltd., Bbsr v. Union of India

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

Ramesh Jena Deo Vs State of Odisha

Sibani Sankar Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Jasobanta Rana Vs State of Odisha

Shiba Nahak@Das Vs State of Odisha

Bikash Das Vs State of Odisha

Ravi Prakash Das Vs State of Odisha