Orissa High Court
Shyamlal Gupta vs Hdfc Bank Ltd on 12 February, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.654 of 2026
Shyamlal Gupta .... Petitioner
Mr. Tuna Sahu, Adv.
with Mr. S. Acharya, Adv.
-versus-
HDFC Bank Ltd., Mumbai & Ors. .... Opp. Parties
Mr. N.K. Dash, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
12.02.2026 Order No.
03. Petitioner being the borrower is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court for assailing the coercive proceedings of recovery in terms of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002.
2. At the stage of preliminary hearing, this Court had passed an order on 15.01.2026, which reads as under:
"Challenge is to the order made by the Magistrate under Section l4 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the 9 points affidavit in terms of Section 14(2) of the said Act has not been filed and the points are not demonstrated and therefore, the order of the Magistrate directing possession to be taken by the lender needs to be interfered. Leamed panel counsel appearing lor the Bank opposes the petition. 3. At this stage, leamed counsel for the Petitioner agrees with the proposal of this Court that 50o/o of the amount due in terms of the Demand Notice should be deposited in the Bank in two equalized fortnightly installments as a pre-condition for interim protection. First installment to be paid within two weeks and the second within two weeks next following, failing Page 1 of 2 which not only interim order stands vacated but the Petition itself runs the risk of dismissal on that ground. Subject to the above, there shall be stay of impugned order of the Magistrate.
Call this matter on 30.01.2026."
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits and the learned Panel Counsel for the Respondent-lender bank does not dispute that Petitioner has deposited 50% of the amount due in terms of the above order towards the demand raised in the notice. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petition may be disposed off with a direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack to hear and dispose off his S.A. No.55 of 2025 and Bank's O.A. No.131 of 2022 at the earliest. He also tells that whatever amount has been now deposited with the Bank, in terms of the order of the Court, be made subject to outcome of the said proceedings. With this proposal, learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Bank is fairly agreeable. It is open to the Respondent- Bank to appropriate the amount in deposit, subject to the outcome of the said proceedings.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed off requesting the DRT, Cuttack to take up the subject cases for hearing at the earliest after giving an opportunity of participation to all the stakeholders. All contentions of the parties are kept open. It hardly needs to be stated that during the pendency of the said cases, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication (Chittaranjan Dash) Location: Orissa High Court Date: 13-Feb-2026 16:01:16 Judge Prasant Page 2 of 2