Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Bank of Maharashtra, Jagatsinghpur Branch Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2026)

Home
Orissa HC
2026
Bank of Maharashtra, Jagatsinghpur Branch Vs SoubhagBank of Maharashtra, Jagatsinghpur Branch v. Soubhagya Chand

Dismissed¶20

Bank of Maharashtra, Jagatsinghpur Branch v. Soubhagya Chandra Biswal

Orissa HC9 Mar 2026WA/75/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ appeal by a bank against a disposal order passed on the bank's own assurance; 'aggrieved person' test where no adjudication of rights has occurred; absence of prejudice as bar to appeal; liberty to file contempt petition; unauthorised Over Draft Facility creating negative balance; frozen Gold Loan account; cheque dishonour and RTGS payment. Parties: Bank of Maharashtra (appellant, through Srinibas Khandai) v. Soubhagya Chandra Biswal and others. Court: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; WA No.75 of 2026; order dated 09.03.2026; Coram: Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman; impugned order dated 2nd December, 2025 in WP(C) No.19497 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

The Single Bench did not enter into the merits or demerits of the case; the writ petition was disposed of because the Bank's officer assured the Court that the dispute would be resolved within a month, and hence the impugned order caused no prejudice to the appellant-Bank.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant-Bank is an aggrieved person entitled to maintain the writ appeal against a Single Bench order by which the writ petition was disposed of on the Bank's own assurance, without adjudication of the parties' rights. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the rights of the parties were not adjudicated upon by the impugned order, the appellant-Bank is not an aggrieved person and cannot maintain the writ appeal; the writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

The Single Bench did not enter into the merits or demerits of the case; the writ petition was disposed of because the Bank's officer assured the Court that the dispute would be resolved within a month, and hence the impugned order caused no prejudice to the appellant-Bank.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (WA No.75 of 2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack) by Bank of Maharashtra against the Single Bench order dated 2nd December, 2025 in WP(C) No.19497 of 2025 — DISMISSED. The Single Bench had disposed of a customer's writ petition (praying waiver of a negative balance and interest arising from an Over Draft Facility created without his knowledge or permission, and release of his frozen Gold Loan account) after the Bank's Law Officer undertook to resolve the issue within one month, with liberty to file a contempt petition on failure. The Division Bench held that the Court having entered into neither merit nor demerit, no prejudice was caused to the Bank; and since no right of the parties was adjudicated, the Bank was not an aggrieved person and the writ appeal was not maintainable.

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.75 of 2026

… Bank of Maharashtra, Jagatsinghpur Appellant Branch, Durgabazar

Mr. Srinibas Khandai, Advocate

-Versus-

… Soubhagya Chandra Biswal and others Respondents

CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

09.03.2026

01. 1 . The instant writ appeal is filed by the appellant-Bank assailing the order dated 2^nd December, 2025 passed by the Single Bench in WP(C) No.19497 of 2025, which reads thus:-

“1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. The Petitioner, by filing this Writ Petition, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to direct the Opposite Party No.1 to waive the negative balance amount and the bank interest thereon arising out of unauthorized transaction made by the Opposite Party No.1 in C/A No.60389615890 of the Petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is maintaining C/A No. 60389615890 with the Opposite Party No.1/Bank. The Petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the Opposite Party No.2 which was dishonoured on its presentation due to insufficient of funds. The Petitioner immediately arranged funds from his well-wishers and deposited in his said C/A No. 60389615890 and made payment to the Opposite Party No.2 through RTGS. Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.1 made payment against the said dishonoured cheque to the Opposite Party No.2 by creating Over Draft Facility in said C/A No. 60389615890 without the knowledge and permission of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has never applied for OD facility before the Opposite Party No.2/Bank. Resultantly, the Petitioner has negative balance

Page 1 of 2

in his C/A No. 60389615890. The Opposite Party No.1/Bank has also charged bank Interest on the Over Draft amount and freezeed the Gold Loan account of the Petitioner. Hence this Writ Petition.

4. The Law Officer, Bank of Maharashtra, who present before this Court undertakes that the issue will be resolved within one month.

5. Considering the submissions made and on going through the averments taken in the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed; this Court grants one month time to the Opposite Party No.1 to resolve the issue raised by the present Petitioner, failing which the Petitioner is free to file Contempt petition.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.”

Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is manifest that the writ petition was disposed of as the officer of the Bank assured to the Court that the dispute would be resolved within a month therefrom. The Court did not enter into the merit or demerit of the case as the appellant-Bank was inclined to resolve the dispute and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the appellant-Bank.

Since the right of the parties has not been adjudicated upon, the appellant-Bank cannot be said to be an aggrieved person to maintain the instant writ appeal, which is hereby dismissed.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

MRS/Laxmikant

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Mar-2026 12:24:01

Page 2 of 2

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the appellant-Bank is an aggrieved person entitled to maintain the writ appeal against a Single Bench order by which the writ petition was disposed of on the Bank's own assurance, without adjudication of the parties' rights.¶20
The court held
Since the rights of the parties were not adjudicated upon by the impugned order, the appellant-Bank is not an aggrieved person and cannot maintain the writ appeal; the writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶20
2.
Whether the impugned disposal order caused any prejudice to the appellant-Bank.¶19
The court held
The Single Bench did not enter into the merits or demerits of the case; the writ petition was disposed of because the Bank's officer assured the Court that the dispute would be resolved within a month, and hence the impugned order caused no prejudice to the appellant-Bank.ratio¶19

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶12 Article 227¶12

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 2nd December, 2025 of the Single Bench in WP(C) No.19497 of 2025, whereby the customer's writ petition (seeking waiver of a negative balance and bank interest arising from an unauthorised Over Draft Facility and freezing of his Gold Loan account) was disposed of after the Bank's Law Officer undertook to resolve the issue within one month, with liberty to the petitioner to file a contempt petition if unresolved.¶10
Single Bench, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack · 2nd December, 2025
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed WP(C) No.19497 of 2025 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to Opposite Party No.1 (Bank) to waive the negative balance amount and bank interest arising out of an unauthorised transaction in his current account C/A No.60389615890.¶12
Prior proceeding
Grievance as pleaded: a cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of Opposite Party No.2 was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds; the petitioner arranged funds and paid Opposite Party No.2 through RTGS, yet the Bank thereafter honoured the same dishonoured cheque by creating an Over Draft Facility in the petitioner's account without his knowledge or permission, never applied for by him, resulting in a negative balance.¶13
Prior proceeding
The Bank charged interest on the Over Draft amount and froze the petitioner's Gold Loan account.¶15
Prior proceeding
Before the Single Bench, the Law Officer of Bank of Maharashtra undertook that the issue would be resolved within one month.¶16
Prior proceeding
On that assurance, the Single Bench granted one month to Opposite Party No.1 to resolve the issue, with liberty to the petitioner to file a contempt petition on failure, and did not adjudicate the merits.¶17
Prior proceeding
The writ petition stood disposed of accordingly.¶18

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Bank of Maharashtra, Jagatsinghpur Appellant Branch, Durgabazar¶2
Srinibas Khandai
respondent
Soubhagya Chandra Biswal and others¶5

Coram

AI extract

Harish Tandonmember¶21
Murahari Sri Ramanmember¶6

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Orissa HC
Decided on: 9 Mar 2026 · March
Registered: 13 Jan 2026
Case no.: WA/75/2026
CNR: ODHC010963812025
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Harish Tandon CJ Murahari Sri Raman
Disposal: Disposed Off
Case type: WA

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Harish Tandon CJ Murahari Sri Raman

Manish Kumar Mallick Vs Commissioner of Ct and Gst,Cuttack
24 Feb 2026
M/S.Ratna Vegetable and Co.,Baragarh Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax(C.T.) and Goods and Services Tax(G.S.T), Cuttack
24 Feb 2026
M/S Sekh Hasibul Rahman Vs the Commissioner, Cgst, Cx and Customs
24 Feb 2026
Abhaya Kumar Swain Vs Superintendent of Police, Puri
9 Mar 2026
Rami Digal Vs State of Odisha
9 Mar 2026
Panchu Nayak Vs State of Odisha
9 Mar 2026

Cite this judgement

Bank of Maharashtra, Jagatsinghpur Branch v. Soubhagya Chandra Biswal, WA/75/2026 (OD), decided on 9 March 2026.

The High Court of Orissa publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226 · Article 227

View all statutes

Procedural history7

Order dated 2nd December, 2025 of the Single Bench in WP(C) No.19497 of 2025, whereby the customer's writ petition (seeking waiver of a negative balance and bank interest arising from an unauthorised Over Draft Facility and freezing of his Gold Loan account) was disposed of after the Bank's Law Officer undertook to resolve the issue within one month, with liberty to the petitioner to file a contempt petition if unresolved.Single Bench, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack · 2nd December, 2025
Petitioner filed WP(C) No.19497 of 2025 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to Opposite Party No.1 (Bank) to waive the negative balance amount and bank interest arising out of an unauthorised transaction in his current account C/A No.60389615890.
Grievance as pleaded: a cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of Opposite Party No.2 was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds; the petitioner arranged funds and paid Opposite Party No.2 through RTGS, yet the Bank thereafter honoured the same dishonoured cheque by creating an Over Draft Facility in the petitioner's account without his knowledge or permission, never applied for by him, resulting in a negative balance.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Harish Tandon and Murahari Sri Raman

Parties & counsel