Disposed

The Chief Manager Cum Ao, Ubi, Jharsuguda v. Swapna Deepak Kotak

Orissa HC16 Jul 2025WP(C)/6073/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank challenged a consumer commission's interim order halting its e-auction of a defaulted borrower's mortgaged properties. As the auction never took place and the interim order was already stayed, the petition became academic. The court disposed of the matter directing return of the bidder's EMD deposited with MSTC.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as academic; Bank directed to arrange return of Rs.15,34,500/- EMD to Opposite Party No.1 via MSTC e-Commerce Pvt. Ltd.; liberty to work out remedies.

The Chief Manager Cum Ao, Ubi, Jharsuguda Vs Swapna… — Consumer Protection | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 17-Jul-2025 16:26:50

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

W.P.(C). NO.6073 OF 2024

¶5

The Chief Manager-cum-Authorized …. Petitioner Officer, Union Bank of India, Jharsuguda

¶6

Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Panda, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

Smt. Swapna Deepak Kotak and …. Opp. Parties another

¶9

Ms. Maryada Dwibedi, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.1)

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

Order No.

16.07.2025

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

No instruction memo filed by Ms. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 is taken on record.

¶17

The Petitioner-Bank has filed this writ petition assailing the interim order dated 8^th February, 2024 (Annexure-6) passed by the President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharsuguda (for brevity ‘the Commission’) in Misc. Case No.01 of 2024 (arising out of CC Case No.09 of 2024) whereby, the Petitioner-Bank has been directed not to proceed with the auction dated 9^th February, 2024, in which, the Complainant-Opposite Party No.1 participated as a bidder, till further orders of the Commission.

¶18

Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that one M/s. Tulshyan Storeware Pvt. Ltd. (TSPL) had taken a loan from the Petitioner-Bank mortgaging certain properties. The loan account became NPA. Subsequently, proceedings under the Securitization And Reconstruction Of Financial Assests And

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 17-Jul-2025 16:26:50

¶22

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity ‘the SARFAESI Act) was initiated. Assailing the auction process, pursuant to the notice under Section 13(2) and 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, one Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, a guarantor filed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack. But, he could not get any interim order in the said proceeding. Suppressing such fact, he filed CC Case No.91 of 2023 before the Commission and obtained an interim order in the said proceeding. Assailing the said order, the Petitioner-Bank filed W.P.(C). No.41680 of 2023 and an interim order was passed therein on 17^th January, 2024 (Annexure2) staying operation of the interim order of stay passed by the Commission in Misc. Case No.31 of 2023 (arising out of CC Case No.91 of 2023). Ultimately, said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 1^st July, 2024 with the following observation and direction:

¶23

“25. This Court fervently hopes that while dealing with such Special Acts, the Consumer Commissions will refrain from judicial adventurism of the present nature which we strongly disapprove.

¶24

26. This Court cannot be oblivious of the conduct of the Opposite Party No.1 in suppressing material facts relating to pendency of Securitization Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, while seeking impugned interim order to that cannot be lightly brushed aside as it clearly appears to be purposeful to serve the mischievous end.

¶25

27. Hence, this Court imposes a cost of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh), to be deposited by the Opposite Party No.1 in the Welfare Fund of Jharsuguda District Bar Association within a period of four weeks hence failing which it shall be taken as violation of the order of this Court entailing the legal consequences thereof.

¶26

28. The proceeding i.e. C.C. No.91 of 2023 pending before the District Consumer Commission, Jharsuguda is hereby quashed and it is held that all such orders passed therein or such

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 17-Jul-2025 16:26:50

¶30

orders in miscellaneous proceeding arising therefrom would stand nullified.

¶31

29. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed with cost as aforestated.”

¶32

In the interregnum, pursuant to the interim order dated 17^th January, 2024, as aforesaid, the Petitioner-Bank issued E-Auction Notice dated 18^th January, 2024 filing the date of auction to 9^th February, 2024, in which the Opposite Party No.1 was one of the participants. Subsequently, she filed CC No.09 of 2024 alleging deficiency of service by the Petitioner-Bank for not disclosing the encumbrances in respect of the mortgaged properties of TSPL, the borrower. In the said proceeding, she also filed an application in Misc. Case No.01 of 2024, wherein the interim impugned order under Annexure-6 was passed. Assailing the same, this writ petition has been filed.

¶33

Ms. Dwibedi, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.1, by filing a memo in Court, submits that inspite of best efforts, they could not contact the Opposite Party No.1. As such, they have no instruction in the matter.

¶34

Considering the submission made by Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Commission vide impugned order under Annexure-6 directed the Petitioner-Bank not to proceed with the E-Auction to be held on 9^th February, 2024. However, the said interim order under Annexure-6 has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 14^th March, 2024 passed in IA No.3806 of 2024.

¶35

Be that as it may, due to order passed under Annexure-6, the auction pursuant to the E-Auction Notice could not be held on 9^th February, 2024. Thus, it appears that no further proceeding

¶36

Page 3 of 4

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 17-Jul-2025 16:26:50

¶39

pursuant to the E-Auction Notice dated 18^th January, 2024 could be undertaken. As such, the complaint, i.e., CC No.09 of 2024 and the present writ petition have become academic. Since the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant, being aggrieved by the action of the Bank of publishing the E-Auction Notice dated 18^th January, 2024, without disclosing the encumbrances has filed CC No.09 of 2024 and no auction could be held pursuant to the said E-Auction Notice, the Opposite Party No.1 may workout her remedy in accordance with law. It further reveals from the impugned order under Annexure-6 that the Opposite Party No.1 had deposited a sum of Rs.15,34,500/- towards EMD to participate in the auction process pursuant to the E-Auction Notice dated 18^th January, 2024. Since no auction could be held pursuant to such E-Auction Notice, EMD amount deposited by Opposite Party No.1 shall be returned to her forthwith.

¶40

However, it is submitted by Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner that EMD deposited by Opposite Party No.1 is in deposit with MSTC e-Commerce Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner-Bank shall communicate this order to MSTC e-Commerce Pvt. Ltd. to make arrangement to return the EMD, so deposited to the Opposite Party No.1, if not already returned.

¶41

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶42

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶43

Rojalin

¶44

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶45

Page 4 of 4

The Chief Manager Cum Ao, Ubi, Jharsuguda v. Swapna Deepak Kotak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Manager Cum Ao, Ubi, Jharsuguda v. Swapna Deepak Kotak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshaya Kumar Rout Vs State of Odisha

Sibaram Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Bansidhar Rana Vs Commissioner of Endowment, Odisha

Dillip Kumar Maharanya Vs Union of India

Kirty Moyi Rath Vs State of Odisha

Balabhadra Panda Vs State of Odisha