The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4686 of 2013 M/s. Samaleswari Ferro Metals Pvt. Ltd., Sambalpur and another …. Petitioners Mr. Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate -versus- Union Bank of India, Mumbai and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Panda, Advocate for the Bank CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA Order No. ORDER 28.07.2025 18. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Panda appearing for the opposite party-Bank. The petitioners have filed this writ petition with the following prayers:- “Under the aforesaid facts, circumstances and contentions, it is humbly prayed that Page 1 of 7 this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to: i) admit and allow this writ application with exemplary cost, and ii) call for the records in the custody of the opp. parties for facilitating an expeditious and meaningful disposal of this writ application in the bonafide interest of justice; and iii) direct and order that the opp. parties shall furnish a statement of entire set of accounts relating to the loan facilities granted to the petitioner no.1 only after charging the legal quantum of interest charged by them from 2006 onwards and by reducing the illegal higher rate of interest in contravention of the statutory mandates of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006 and the Rules/ Notifications issued thereunder; and Page 2 of 7 iv) direct and order that the interest to be charges by the opp. parties in relation to this loan account of the petitioner no.1 for the period 2004-05 onwards has as per law to be in terms of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006 and Rules and Notifications issued thereunder; and v) further direct that upon adjustment of illegally overcharged interest by the opp. parties, all accounts of all nature involving the loan accounts of the petitioner no.1 vis-(cid:224)-vis the opp. parties will stand closed without any encumbrances and all securities etc. shall stand relieved and released; and further direct to release all properties of the petitioners offered as security for all forms of loans availed by the petitioner no.1 from the opp. parties; and vi) direct/order that the opp. party shall respond to the detailed Page 3 of 7 calculations given by the petitioners in the Annexure-17, 17A and 18 and upon reconciliation/ conformation of amounts, an amount of Rs.1,43,99,589/- will stand refunded as illegally exacted property/money after liquidation and adjustment of the entire term loan outstanding as on the relevant date; vii) upon the above prayers being allowed by this Hon’ble Court, all forms of securities held by the opp. parties, as detailed in the five items in page-1 of Annexure-17 herewith shall stand released and the opp. parties shall conform accordingly to the petitioners; viii) pass such other order(s)/ direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.” Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has filed a memo with a document, Page 4 of 7 which is the Udyog Aadhaar Registration Certificate of the petitioner no.1-industry as MSME and the date of commencement of the industry is shown as 24.11.2003. The memo along with the document is taken on record. Copy of the document has been served on the learned counsel for the opposite party-Bank. In pursuance of the orders dated 30.06.2025 and 14.07.2025, an affidavit has been filed by the opposite party-Bank, inter alia, stating as under:- “4. That as per the specific plea in the counter affidavit at para-21, the opposite party bank has clearly stated that the writ petitioner has consciously accepted the terms and conditions of the renewal sanctioned letter dtd.06.12.2005, 30.06.2007, 26.06.2008, 22.12.2009, 27.06.2011 and 30.11.2012 without raising any objection. For the first time the petitioner on 31.03.2012 vide Annexure-9 claimed relief under MSME Act. 5. That for the aforesaid reasons the opposite party bank had not considered the grievance of the petitioner. However the opposite party bank has categorized the petitioner unit as MSME in the year 2009 as Page 5 of 7 per Annexure-7. 6. That in view of the aforesaid facts it is humbly submitted that the matter is year old and after amalgamation of Andhra Bank with Union Bank of India and shifting of documents the present opposite party is unable to take necessary steps. Therefore, the petitioner be permitted to furnish all the documents and the opposite party bank undertakes to consider the claim of the petitioner from 2006 to 2008 as per the MSME Act.” The affidavit dated 15.07.2025 filed by the opposite party-Bank is taken on record. A reading of the affidavit makes it clear that the opposite party-Bank has no quarrel to treat the petitioner-company as MSME industry from 2006 onwards. However due to non-availability of the documents, the opposite party-Bank is not able to process the same. Hence, in the paragraph-6 of the affidavit as reproduced above, it has been specifically mentioned that if the petitioners submits all the documents to the opposite party-Bank, then the grievances raised by the petitioner shall be addressed appropriately. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing Page 6 of 7 for the petitioners submits that the entire documents sought by the bank are form part of this writ petition. Therefore, he undertakes to submit the entire
Decision
documents, which are part of the writ petition, before the opposite party-Bank within 15 days so that as per para-6 of the affidavit dated 15.07.2025, the opposite party-Bank shall consider the case of the petitioner. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction that if the petitioners submit the entire documents as stated above within a period of fifteen days, the opposite party-Bank shall consider the same within a period of one month hence. If the opposite party-Bank feels it appropriate and necessary, then a personal hearing may be afforded to the petitioners before grant of relief as prayed for. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge ( S.S. Mishra) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jul-2025 18:32:18 RKM Page 7 of 7