Orissa High Court
M/S. Indravati Motors & Others vs Collector And District .... Opposite ... on 14 March, 2024
Bench: D. Dash, V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 3525 of 2024
M/s. Indravati Motors & Others .... Petitioners
Mr. M. Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
Collector and District .... Opposite Parties
Magistrate, Bargarh & Others
Mr. S.N. Das, ASC
Mr. B.C. Panda, Advocate (Bank)
CORAM:
Mr. JUSTICE D. DASH
Mr. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
14.03.2024 Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode.
2. Heard Mr. M. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. S.N. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel and Mr. B.C. Panda, learned counsel having instruction to appear on behalf of the Bank Authorities-Opposite Parties 2 to 5.
3. Plenary jurisdiction of this Court under Article- 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been invoked for quashing the proceeding initiated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 21.09.2023 vide Annexure-8 pending before the Collector & D.M., Bargarh.
4. It is apt to note here that this is the second journey of the Petitioners to this Court. The Petitioners had earlier moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.34455 of 2023 and the same was disposed of by order dated 30.10.2023 granting liberty to the Petitioners to file Page 1 of 3 an application before the Opposite Party-Bank for OTS of the outstanding dues of the Petitioner.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. M. Sahoo that in terms of the leave granted by this Court the Petitioners made an application for OTS but unfortunately the Opposite Party-Bank intimated that the same cannot be considered. Hence, this Writ Petition.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners brings to the notice of this Court that in the interregnum the Petitioners, notwithstanding the left foot lisfranc amputation of Petitioners, admittedly had paid a draft of Rs.21 lakhs and are making sincere endeavor to clear the dues as early as possible and for which they are seeking a direction to the Opposite Party-Bank to lend a helping hand.
7. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Bank, Mr. B.C. Panda submits that there is no illegality in non-consideration of the Petitioners' OTS and states that as a financial institution, the Bank is bound by the Rules governing the field.
8. On considering the rival contentions, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that non- payment was on account of insurmountable hardship. Hence, this Court feels that interest of justice would be subserved if the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the Petitioners to file an application de novo before the Opposite Party-Bank for settlement of the loan account within a reasonable time frame for such settlement taking into account the special features of the case at hand as the Petitioners had paid a sum of Rs.21 lakhs as noted.
9. In the event such an application is made enclosing a copy of this order, within a period of four weeks hence, the Opposite Party-Bank would do well to consider the same sympathetically and Page 2 of 3 in a proper perspective with the expediency it deserves. And, this Court fervently hopes that such consideration shall not be hindered by any coercive action initiated earlier in respect of the loan in question. And, the Opposite Party-Bank shall not treat the further representation of the Petitioners as an offshoot of adversarial litigation.
It is made clear that any consequential consideration of Petitioners' grievance by the Opposite Party-Bank in the case at hand, shall not be treated as a precedent.
10. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.
(D. Dash) Judge (V. Narasingh) Judge PKS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 19-Mar-2024 11:52:59 Page 3 of 3