Orissa High Court
Sunanda Parida vs Chief Manager on 24 September, 2024
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 8275 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Sunanda Parida .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
Chief Manager, Reserve Bank of .... Opposite Party (s)
India and Ors.
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Mitalee Jesthi, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Subrat Misra, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-20.08.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT: -24.09.2024
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner, through this Writ Petition, seeks to challenge the inaction of the Opp. Party No. 3 in not releasing the original mortgaged title deeds of the Petitioner despite closure of the Loan Account bearing Account No. 8014774000062 on 09.02.2022 upon payment of the full outstanding dues alleging that it is illegal, arbitrary, malafide as well as contrary to the well-settled principles of law.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the Petitioner: Page 1 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05
(i) On 24.06.2011, the Petitioner had availed Housing Loan of Rs. 9,00,000/-
(Rupees Nine Lakh Only) (hereinafter "Housing Loan") from the Opp. Party No. 3 for the construction of her sole Residential House. Further, the said loan was sanctioned bearing Loan Account No. 8014774000062 for a duration of 10 years, i.e., starting from 24.06.2011 and to be repaid in 10 years with 181 EMIS.
(ii) In the meantime, the Petitioner had undertaken financing to start her business of providing bus services to daily commuters and passengers. In August 2005, the Petitioner purchased Vehicle bearing Registration No. OR- 17D-5500 ("Vehicle No. 1") financed under Citi Corp Finance Sambalpur. Further, the Petitioner re-financed Vehicle No. 1 for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) from Cholamandalam Finance, which stood re-paid with no incident of default on part of the Petitioner. Further, in April 2008, the Petitioner purchased another vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-17F-2700 ("Vehicle No. 2") under Citi Corp Finance Sambalpur. Subsequently/ the Vehicle No. 2 was re-financed from Syndicate Bank, Bargarh (now "Canara Bank, Bargarh" owing to Bank Merger). The said loan too stood re-paid with no instance of default. Lastly, on 20.08.2016, the Petitioner purchased a Night Coach Bus of Make:- TATA-LPO-1618TL/62- BS-III- ABS ("Requisite Make") bearing Registration No. OD-17J-5005 ("Vehicle No. 3") under Micro-Small- Medium Enterprises Loan ("MSME Loan") from Syndicate Bank (now "Canara Bank, Bargarh" owing to Bank Merger) for an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only), scheduled to be re-paid in 78 EMIs of Rs. 56,752/- (Rupees Fifty-Six Page 2 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05 Thousand Six Hundred seventy two only) each with a moratorium granted for a duration of 6 months from the date the loan was availed.
(iii) The Petitioner was unable to continue repayment towards the Housing Loan owing to sudden breakout of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Petitioner, a business-owner providing bus services for daily commuters and passengers was caught unawares when the entire State entered lockdown, found herself amidst the escalating pandemic fallout that led to the complete halt of her business operations.
(iv) With the waning of the pandemic, the Petitioner immediately tried to close the Housing Loan. On 09.02.2022, the Petitioner paid the full outstanding amount and closed the Loan Account No. 8014774000062. The same has been endorsed by the Opp. Party No. 3 on the Statement of Account dated 10.02.2022.
(v) After closure of the Housing Loan, the Petitioner sought for the return of the original mortgaged title deeds of the sole Residential House. However, the Opp. Party No. 3 intimated that the original mortgaged title deeds cannot be returned as the same has been kept as subsequent equitable mortgage to the MSME Loan availed for purchasing Vehicle No.3. The Opp. Party No. 3 did not return the original mortgaged title deeds of the Petitioner, rather rebutted the ask of the Petitioner stating that the Petitioner's sole Residential House had been created as subsequent equitable mortgage for sanction of "Transport Loan" by virtue of the Composite Hypothecation Agreement ("Agreement 1"). Page 3 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05
(vi) The Petitioner claims that she had neither signed nor pledged the title deeds of her sole residential house for the purpose of availing the MSME loan.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) In due course of her business, the Petitioner entrusted the Opp. Party No. 3 to handle documentation pertaining to banking transaction(s) between the Petitioner and the Opp. Party No. 3. Owing to such consistent mutual trust, built through numerous transactions upon the years, the Petitioner again entrusted the Opp. Party No. 3 with the Agreement 1. In this manner, the signature(s) of the Petitioner were duly obtained by the Opp. Party No. 3 before the detailed information was written into the Agreement 1, i.e., the Petitioner had already signed the Agreement - 1 before any details were filled into the information spaces thereunder.
(ii) Thereafter, on verification, the Petitioner came to know that the Opp.
Party No. 3 had arbitrarily and unilaterally, after obtaining the signature of the Petitioner had filled fraudulent details in the 'Confirmation of Creation of Second/Subsequent Equitable Mortgage'. Even, the MSME Loan was written off to be a 'Transport Loan' which has no truthful bearing whatsoever, distorting the essential character of the MSME Loan. Thus, the autonomy of the Petitioner has been reduced to mere formality due to the arbitrary actions of the Opp. Party No. 3 who saw fit to taint the good faith that the Petitioner reposed unto it. Page 4 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05
(iii) By withholding the mortgaged title deeds of the Petitioner, inspite of the closure of the Housing Loan, on the pretext of creating charge on the sole Residential House of the Petitioner regarding the MSME Loan, stands contrary to the well-settled position of law.
(iv) Also, pursuant to the RBI notification on 'Responsible Lending Conduct- Release of Movable/Immovable Property Documents on Repayment/ Settlement of Personal Loans' dated 13.09.2023, the Opp. Party No. 3 is obligated to release the mortgaged title deeds of the Petitioner and remove charges registered with any registry within a period of 30 days after full repayment of the loan account. Therefore, due to causing delay in release of the mortgaged title deeds, the Opp. Party No. 3 squarely falls within the purview of the Compensation for delay in release of Immovable Property documents.
(v) During a period where economic downturn was in full-swing and the business operations of the Petitioner had been ground to halt, the Petitioner was made aware by the Opp. Party No. 3 that her sole Residential House has been charged and attached to the MSME Loan. Thereupon, the Petitioner sought to restructure the MSME Loan and on 18.02.2022, the Petitioner submitted application with appropriate rationale(s) regarding the same to the Opp. Party No. 3. However, till date, the request for restructuring the MSME Loan remains unaddressed by the Opp. Party No. 3 whose conduct has become synonymous with that of a recovery agent rather than a banking institution bearing pan-India presence across India. Page 5 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05
(vi) The Opp. Party No. 3 has treated the Petitioner with disregard despite the consistently stellar CIBIL Score and even misappropriated the funds from the GECL Scheme, resulting in the financial distress of the Petitioner.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i). The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed/dropped in limine with costs as misconceived in facts and law, in view of the alternative, efficacious remedy being available to the petitioner under section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as the "SARFAESI Act") to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack which is functional.
(ii). The petitioner is the borrower for sanction of a term loan facility of Rs.30 lakhs sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 20.8.2016 from the Bargarh Branch of Canara Bank. It is pertinent to state that the petitioner had taken another prior housing loan on 24.06.2011 of Rs. 9 lakhs vide letter of sanction dated 24.6.2011 and created equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds for the aforestated loan at the Canara Bank branch office in Bargarh town by Confirmation of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 29.6.2011.
(iii). When the petitioner took the subsequent loan of Rs 30 lakhs sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 20.8.16 from the Bargarh Branch of Canara Page 6 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05 Bank, the prior equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds for the afore stated loan of Rs 9 lakhs was extended by the petitioner to the subsequent loan of Rs 30 lakhs vide Confirmation of Creation of Second/Subsequent Equitable Mortgage dated 20.5.2016.
(iv). As the petitioner defaulted in repayment of the loan of Rs 30 lakhs, the bank invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by issuing notice under section 13(2) dated 1.8.2022 against the petitioner and the guarantor.
(v). This Court, in connected WP(C) No. 8267/24, has already dismissed the said writ petition by order dated 03.05.24 on the ground of alternative remedy which also applies squarely to the present case which should also be dismissed accordingly.
(vi). The petitioner has suppressed the vital fact that she had approached the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bargarh by filing Consumer Complaint Case No. 31/22 for one of the main reliefs claimed in the present writ petition which has been dismissed denying the said relief by order dated 12.3.2024 though allowing the other relief hence the writ petition is to be dismissed for suppression of material facts.
(vii). Under section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act,, the petitioner can ventilate her grievances before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack. Hence, in spite of the alternative, efficacious remedy being available to the petitioner as guarantor/mortgagor to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack under section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002; the petitioner has erroneously invoked jurisdiction of Article 226. Page 7 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05
(viii). The petitioner is the borrower for sanction of a term loan facility of Rs 30 lakhs sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 20.8.2016 from the Bargarh Branch of Canara Bank. It is pertinent to state that the petitioner had taken another prior housing loan on 24.6.2011 of Rs 9 lakhs vide letter of sanction dated 24.6.2011 and created equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds for the aforestated loan at the Canara Bank branch office in Bargarh town by Confirmation of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 29.6.2011. It is humbly submitted that when the petitioner took the subsequent loan of Rs 30 lakhs sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 20.8.2016 from the Bargarh Branch of Canara Bank; the prior equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds for the afore stated loan of Rs 9 lakhs was extended by the petitioner to the subsequent loan of Rs 30 lakhs vide Confirmation of Creation of Second/Subsequent Equitable Mortgage dated 20.5.2016 by the petitioner.
(ix). It is denied that the petitioner never signed the subsequent mortgage by deposit of title deeds nor pledged them as such mortgages was created by the petitioner as security for the subsequent term loan of Rs 30 lakhs sanctioned to her and for default in such loan, the bank has initiated action under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by issuing the notice under section 13(2) dated 1.8.2022, It is humbly submitted that such alleged disputed facts cannot be decided in a writ petition and the petitioner has an alternative remedy under section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal Cuttack. Page 8 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05 IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. I have heard counsel for the respective parties and perused material on record.
6. Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers upon the High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. However, this extraordinary jurisdiction is not meant to bypass alternate statutory remedies that may be available to the aggrieved party. The general principle of law is that if an effective and adequate alternate remedy exists, the courts should refrain from exercising their writ jurisdiction under Article 226. This rule promotes judicial discipline and respects the framework established by statutes, ensuring that specialized forums, tribunals, or authorities created under law are given the first opportunity to address grievances.
7. This principle becomes even more pertinent when the cases arise under special statutes that provide a comprehensive mechanism for dispute resolution. Special statutes are often designed to address specific issues in a specialized manner, and the legislative intent behind such statutes is to ensure that the specialized tribunals or authorities, with expertise in the subject matter, have primary jurisdiction. In such cases, invoking Article 226 without exhausting the statutory remedy undermines the purpose of these specialized mechanisms. Therefore, unless exceptional circumstances such as violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or manifest injustice are evident, the High Courts ought not to entertain writ petitions where alternate statutory remedies are available, particularly under special statutes.Page 9 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05
8. It must be kept in mind that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to be entertained if alternate statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well defined exceptions as observed in Commissioner of Income Tax and Others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal,1 as follows:
"15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titaghur Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation."
9. In Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew KC,2 the Supreme Court delved into the object and being of the SARFAESI Act and held as following:
"8. The statement of objects and reasons of the SARFAESI Act states that the banking and financial sector in the country was 1 2014 (1) SCC 603 2 2018 (3) SCC 85 Page 10 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05 felt not to have a level playing field in comparison to other participants in the financial markets in the world. The financial institutions in India did not have the power to take possession of securities and sell them. The existing legal framework relating to commercial transactions had not kept pace with changing commercial practices and financial sector reforms resulting in tardy recovery of defaulting loans and mounting non-performing assets of banks and financial institutions. The Narasimhan Committee I and II as also the Andhyarujina Committee constituted by the Central Government Act had suggested enactment of new legislation for securitisation and empowering banks and financial institutions to take possession of securities and sell them without court intervention which would enable them to realise long term assets, manage problems of liquidity, asset liability mismatches and improve recovery. The proceedings under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act/ 1993/ (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT Act') with passage of time, had become synonymous with those before regular courts affecting expeditious adjudication. All these aspects have not been kept in mind and considered before passing the impugned order."
...
9. Even prior to the SARFAESI Act, considering the alternate remedy available under the DRT Act it was held in Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan [(2001) 6 SCC 569] that: (SCC p. 570, para 6) "6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast-track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless, when there is an alternative remedy available, Page 11 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05 judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act."
10. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon,3 the Supreme Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 ought not to be entertained in view of the alternate statutory remedy available holding. The relevant portion is produced hereinbelow:-
"43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. ...
55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for 3 2010 (8) SCC 110 Page 12 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05 passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection."
11. In General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited and another vs. Ikbal and others,4 the Apex Court observed that the action of the Bank under Section 13(4) of the 'SARFAESI Act' available to challenge by the aggrieved under Section 17 was an efficacious remedy and the institution directly under Article 226 was not sustainable, relying upon Satyawati Tandon (Supra), observing :
"27. No doubt an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 but by now it is well settled that where a statute provides efficacious and adequate remedy, the High Court will do well in not entertaining a petition under Article 226. On misplaced considerations, statutory procedures cannot be allowed to be circumvented.
28.......
In our view, there was no justification whatsoever for the learned Single Judge to allow the borrower to bypass the efficacious remedy provided to him under Section 17 and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction in his favour when he had disentitled himself for such relief by his conduct. The Single Judge was clearly in error in invoking his extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 in light of the peculiar facts indicated above. The Division Bench also erred in affirming the erroneous order of the Single Judge."
12. Notwithstanding, the present case raises questions of disputed facts rather than a substantial question of law in isolation. The petitioner 4 2013 (10) SCC 83 Page 13 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05 contends that she did not sign the subsequent mortgage by deposit of title deeds, nor did she pledge her property as collateral. She maintains that the mortgage was created without her consent, as security for a subsequent term loan of Rs. 30 lakhs sanctioned to her, and asserts that the title deeds to her residential property are being wrongfully withheld.
13. However, the document titled "CONFIRMATION OF CREATION OF SECOND/SUBSEQUENT EQUITABLE MORTGAGE" dated 20.08.2016 presents a conflicting narrative. The petitioner claims she does not recall signing this document, further complicating the matter. This gives rise to a clear issue of disputed facts, particularly surrounding the authenticity and validity of the mortgage. In such situations, the factual discrepancies must be thoroughly examined, as they significantly impact the merits of the case. The conflicting positions between the petitioner's claims and the documentary evidence underscore the need for a detailed factual inquiry, beyond the mere application of legal principles.
14. Now, the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Atmanand Singh & Ors.5 reiterated the settled legal principle that when a petition involves complex questions of fact, as in the present case, which necessitate the production and proof of oral and documentary evidence by the concerned parties, the High Court should be reluctant to entertain such writ petitions. In such instances, the appropriate course of action is to direct the parties to avail themselves of alternate 5 (2020) 6 SCC 256 Page 14 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05 remedies. However, if the material facts presented in the Writ Petition are either admitted or indisputable, the High Court may be justified in examining the petitioner's claims on their merits, in accordance with law.
15. In State of UP and Anr. v. Ehsan & Anr.,6 the Supreme Court held as under:
"28. We are conscious of the law that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on exercise of writ jurisdiction. More so, when a writ petition has been entertained, parties have exchanged their pleadings/ affidavits and the matter has remained pending for long. In such a situation there must be a sincere effort to decide the matter on merits and not relegate the writ petitioner to the alternative remedy, unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. One such compelling reason may arise where there is a serious dispute between the parties on a question of fact and materials/evidence(s) available on record are insufficient/inconclusive to enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion."
16. I am, thus, of the considered opinion that this Court should refrain from entertaining and allowing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. The present case necessitates the resolution of certain factual disputes, and the petitioner must first exhaust the available alternative remedies before approaching this Court again.
6 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5721 OF 2023 Page 15 of 16 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 19:03:05 V. CONCLUSION:
17. In light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds no merit in the current Writ Petition. The Petitioner has not succeeded in establishing grounds for interference with the matter.
18. However, all questions of law and fact remain open for consideration in any application by the aggrieved before the statutory forum under the SARFAESI Act.
19. In light of the foregoing, this Writ Petition is dismissed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th Sept., 2024/ Page 16 of 16