Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.192 of 2025 (An appeal under Section 13 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011.) M/s. Goldenland Developers Ltd. …. Appellant (s) -versus- State of Odisha …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Mr. Soumya Jyoti Biswal, Adv. Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA Mr. Bibakananda Bhuyan, Adv. (for OPID) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-21.11.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-12.12.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The present First Appeal (FAO) has been filed challenging the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Designated Court under the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011, whereby the application filed by the Appellant under Section 11 of the said Act came to be rejected. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 (a) The Appellant Company had approached the Commission of Inquiry in Inquiry Case No. 19(E)/2018 seeking permission to sell its properties in order to facilitate repayment of the amounts allegedly due to the depositors. The Commission of Inquiry granted such permission on 03.12.2018. (b) Subsequently, the net proceeds of the sale were deposited before the Respondent by means of a Demand Draft amounting to Rs. 5,00,00,000 (Rupees Five Crores Only) drawn on HDFC Bank. (c) The Respondent furnished details of three bank accounts in the State of Andhra Pradesh in which a further sum of Rs. 6,53,06,883 (Rupees Six Crore Fifty Three Lakhs Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Three Only) was kept for distribution among the depositors. The Appellant acknowledged this position in its Letter No. 239 dated 15.07.2024. (d) The Appellant has consistently acted in compliance with the directions of the Commission of Inquiry to refund the net sale proceeds to the Respondent. The sale of its properties has been permitted on multiple occasions under the supervision of this Court, including in CRLMC No. 1252 of 2016 by order dated 01.09.2023 and in W.P.(C) No. 9910 of 2024 by order dated 05.08.2024, each time for facilitating repayment to the depositors. (e) In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent in W.P.(C) No. 18277 of 2023, the Respondent acknowledged that the Appellant had been taking steps to refund the amounts due to the depositors and also indicated the specific sums deposited. Reference was made to earlier Page 2 of 17 Signature Not Verified
Legal Reasoning
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 orders of this Court in CRLMC No. 1252 of 2016 dated 28.07.2017 and in W.P.(C) No. 18277 of 2016 dated 01.09.2023, which recorded the progress made towards repayment. (f) In a further attempt to pay the depositors, the Appellant filed W.P.(C) No. 9910 of 2024. By order dated 05.08.2024, this Court directed the Sub-Registrar, Ganjam to allow registration of the sale deeds presented by the Appellant in favour of the proposed buyers and set aside the earlier order refusing registration. The registration could not be completed on account of the ill health of the director of the Appellant Company and, in the meantime, an ad-interim order of attachment dated 22.08.2024 came to be passed. (g) The ad-interim order of attachment dated 22.08.2024 includes the properties mentioned in the sale deeds. Due to the embargo under Rule 4 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Rules, 2013 on registration of sale deeds that are the subject matter of an ad-interim attachment, the registration could not be completed. (h) The proposed buyers of the properties involved in W.P.(C) No. 9910 of 2024 had made considerable investments towards stamp duty and registration charges for presentation of the sale deeds. The sale of these lands is also relevant for payment of the sale consideration to the Appellant, which in turn is required for refunding the amounts due to the depositors. (i) The Finance Department, Government of Odisha, by letter dated 14.03.2022 bearing No. 6058 addressed to the Superintendent of Page 3 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 Police, clarified that the properties sought to be sold by the Appellant were not previously the subject matter of attachment. This was followed by a letter of the District Registrar, Ganjam, Chatrapur dated 23.05.2023 bearing No. 1122 addressed to the Sub-Registrar, Ganjam for necessary action on the Appellant’s representation, after which the sale deeds were presented for registration. (j) The Appellant filed an application under Section 11 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 seeking permission to deposit security in respect of the properties covered under the five sale deeds which this Court had directed the Sub-Registrar, Ganjam to consider for registration, and also sought release of those properties from the ad-interim order of attachment. (k) From the five sale deeds, the net consideration amount is ascertainable and the Appellant undertook to deposit the entire consideration amount in advance for release of the properties from the ad-interim order of attachment. (l) The net consideration amount aggregates to Rs. 1,91,00,000 (Rupees One Crore Ninety One Lakhs Only), and the Appellant undertook to deposit the said amount before this Court for release of the properties mentioned in the schedule from the ad-interim order of attachment. (m) The Appellant subsequently filed an application under Section 11 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 before the learned Designated Court Page 4 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 seeking release of the properties mentioned in the schedule from the ad-interim attachment order dated 22.08.2024 upon furnishing security of Rs. 1,91,00,000 (Rupees One Crore Ninety One Lakhs Only). (n) An Additional Affidavit was filed before the learned Court below disclosing the benchmark government valuation of the properties sought to be released under the Section 11 application. The benchmark valuation amounts to Rs. 1,90,98,252.80 (Rupees One Crore Ninety Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Two and Eighty Paise Only), which is marginally lower than the security proposed to be furnished. (o) The Respondent filed an objection dated 04.01.2025 contending that the security offered was much less than the market value of the properties and that the Section 11 application was liable to be rejected. (p) After hearing both parties, the learned Designated Court rejected the Section 11 application by order dated 21.04.2025. The ad-interim order of attachment dated 22.08.2024 continues to remain in force. (q) Aggrieved by the rejection order dated 21.04.2025, the Appellant has II. 3. preferred the present First Appeal. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The Appellant contended that the learned Designated Court erred in its interpretation of Section 11 of the O.P.I.D. Act. It was submitted Page 5 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 that Section 11 is a benevolent provision which enables an alleged Financial Establishment to furnish security for release of attached properties. According to the Appellant, this mechanism ensures prompt disposal, avoids delay, and obviates the need for the Court to engage in lengthy proceedings or incur the costs associated with conducting a public auction. ii. The Appellant further submitted that the learned Designated Court erred in holding that the responsibility for payment cannot be shifted from the Government. It was contended that the plain wording of Section 11 expressly permits an application for furnishing security and seeking release of attached property at any stage of the proceedings, thereby indicating that the responsibility of making payment to the depositors can, in appropriate cases, be assumed by the alleged Financial Establishment. iii. The Appellant also relied upon the decision of this Court in Gayadhar Jena v. State of Odisha1, wherein this Court, particularly in paragraphs 11 and 12, entertained an application under Section 11 of the O.P.I.D. Act and directed release of properties from an ad- interim order of attachment. The Appellant submitted that the said decision clearly supports the maintainability and scope of a Section 11 application in circumstances comparable to the present case. iv. The Appellant submitted that the security offered is almost four times the O.P.I.D. valuation reflected in the attachment order (serial no. 8) and is also higher than the benchmark government valuation. 1 2024 OLR (I) 877. Page 6 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 It was contended that the learned Designated Court, instead of making a fair guesstimation or assessment of the market value of the properties, rejected the Section 11 application on the premise that the responsibility for payment cannot be shifted, which according to the Appellant is contrary to the statutory framework. v. The Appellant argued that if the learned Designated Court was of the view that the security offered was lower than the market value, it could have either rejected the application on that ground or directed the Appellant to enhance the amount of security to meet the market value. According to the Appellant, such an approach would have furthered the object of Section 11 and the purpose of the O.P.I.D. Act. Instead, the Court rejected the application on what is described as a self-evolved concept of shifting responsibility, which, according to the Appellant, does not find support in law, logic, or equity. vi. The Appellant further contended that Rule 37A of the Odisha Stamp Rules, 1952 empowers the District Level Valuation Committee (DLVC), chaired by the Collector, to utilise the services of professional valuers for assisting in the revision of market value guidelines. It was urged that the learned Designated Court could have resorted to the DLVC to obtain a satisfactory valuation of the properties. Instead, the learned Court declined to exercise such a course of action and held that no such power exists under Section 11 for release of the properties. vii. The Appellant also relied upon Section 47A(2) of the Indian Stamp Act (Odisha Amendment), 1899, which empowers the Collector to Page 7 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31
Legal Reasoning
determine market value. It was submitted that under Section 4 of the O.P.I.D. Act, the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate is the Competent Authority and could have been directed to furnish the market valuation. The Appellant contended that despite the availability of such statutory mechanisms, the learned Designated Court mechanically rejected the Section 11 application without proper application of mind. viii. The Appellant lastly referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Harnand Singh and others2 wherein the Supreme Court enunciated the concept of “guesstimation” and identified three factors for determining market value, namely (a) characteristics of the land, (b) future potentiality of the land, and (c) market sentiment. It was contended that the learned Designated Court failed to consider or apply these factors and instead mechanically rejected the Appellant’s Section 11 petition. ix. The Appellant contended that the language of Section 11 of the O.P.I.D. Act, 2011, which empowers the learned Designated Court to cancel the ad-interim order of attachment or to refrain from passing an order of confirmation, necessarily includes within it the power to amend or alter the ad-interim attachment. Emphasis was placed on the concluding portion of Section 11, which provides that the Court may cancel the ad-interim order of attachment or, as the case may be, refrain from passing the order under sub section (6) of section 9. According to the Appellant, this language clearly incorporates the power to modify the existing attachment order. 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1691. Page 8 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 x. The Appellant further submitted that Section 11 is a benevolent provision which saves valuable judicial time and reduces the cumbersome expenses associated with lengthy trial processes. It was contended that when security is offered at the benchmark valuation, such security ought to be treated as satisfactory for the purpose of releasing the properties from attachment. xi. The Appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gayatri Balasamy v. M/s. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd.3, wherein the Court held that although Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 confers power to set aside an arbitral award, the same is flexible enough to include the power to modify or alter the award. By analogy, it was submitted that the power to cancel an ad-interim order of attachment under Section 11 likewise encompasses the power to modify or alter it. It was argued that such an interpretation furthers the purpose of the statute, namely securing the claims of depositors, whereas a restrictive interpretation would defeat the legislative intent and reflect an unduly pedantic approach. xii. The Appellant also referred to definitions in Black’s Law Dictionary, submitting that “cancellation” is defined as an annulment or termination, while “setting aside” is defined as an annulment. On this basis, the Appellant argued that the power to cancel an order is the same as the power to set aside it, and both must necessarily include the power to alter or modify the ad-interim order of attachment. 3 SLP (C) Nos. 15336- 15337 of 2021. Page 9 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. It was submitted that the Appellant has been prosecuted under the O.P.I.D. Act for having collected an amount of Rs. 590,68,27,725/- from 8,88,052 depositors and that several ad-interim orders of attachment have been issued against the Appellant’s properties. ii. Learned counsel pointed out that the first ad-interim order of attachment was issued on 01.07.2014 and was made absolute on 23.12.2015. The second ad-interim order was issued on 13.09.2021 attaching Ac. 208.499 decimals of land in Odisha and Ac. 29.07 cents of land in Andhra Pradesh, and the application for making the said order absolute is pending. The third ad-interim order of attachment was passed on 28.07.2023 and the application for making it absolute is also pending. The fourth ad-interim order was issued on 22.08.2024, and the application for confirmation of the same is sub judice. iii. It was submitted that the Appellant filed an application under Section 11 on 24.09.2024 seeking release of certain attached properties described in the schedule to the petition and offered a sum of Rs. 1,91,00,000 in respect of the properties attached under the fourth ad- interim order dated 22.08.2024. The said application was rejected by order dated 21.04.2025, leading to the present appeal under Section 13 of the Act. Page 10 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 iv. Learned counsel submitted that under Section 11 of the O.P.I.D. Act, the Court may cancel an attachment order only if security to the satisfaction of the Court is furnished in lieu of the attachment, and such security must be sufficient in the opinion of the Court. It was argued that Section 11 permits cancellation of the entire ad-interim attachment and is intended as an alternative to an order under Section 9(6). v. It was further submitted that Section 9(6) empowers the Court to make the ad-interim order absolute, vary it by releasing a portion of the property, cancel the ad-interim order, or direct sale of the attached property. The proviso to Section 9(6) states that the Court shall not release any interest unless it is satisfied that property of not less than the value required for repayment to depositors remains under attachment. vi. Learned counsel contended that Section 11 and Section 9(6) operate in different fields. Section 9(6) expressly empowers the Court to release a portion of the attached property. Section 11, on the other hand, does not contain such language and instead provides that the Court may cancel the entire ad-interim order of attachment if satisfactory security is furnished. The language of Section 11 also expressly restrains the Court, while invoking that provision, from passing any order under Section 9(6). vii. On this basis, it was argued that the legislative intent is clear that a partial release of the attached properties cannot be granted under Section 11. The section permits only cancellation of the entire Page 11 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 attachment order, not release of a portion of the attached property. Furnishing of partial security for partial release is therefore impermissible. viii. It was submitted that the golden rule of statutory interpretation requires the Court to read the language of the statute as it is and that no words can be added or subtracted. Since the legislature has not used the language of Section 9(6) in Section 11, it must be presumed that the omission is deliberate, and Section 11 cannot be interpreted to allow release of a portion of the attached property. ix. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the present appeal is devoid of merit and the impugned order warrants no interference. IV. FINDINGS OF THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER THE O.P.I.D ACT, CUTTACK: 5. 6. The learned Designated Court noted that the Appellant had filed an application under Section 11 of the O.P.I.D. Act seeking release of certain properties from the ad-interim order of attachment dated 22.08.2024 upon furnishing security of Rs. 1,91,00,000. The said properties formed part of the fourth ad-interim attachment order, for which confirmation proceedings were still pending. The Designated Court recounted the Appellant’s case that earlier sales had been permitted by the Commission of Inquiry and by this Court on several occasions, that substantial amounts had already been deposited towards repayment of depositors, and that the properties now sought to be released had been presented for registration pursuant to orders in W.P.(C) No. 9910 of 2024 but could not be registered due to the subsequent ad-interim attachment. The Appellant had expressed willingness to deposit the entire Page 12 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 7. 8. consideration amount corresponding to the five sale deeds to secure release of the properties. The Designated Court also recorded the objection of the State that the security offered was inadequate, that the properties sought to be released had been acquired using public deposits collected from 8,88,052 investors, that the aggregate amount due was Rs. 590,68,27,725, and that the attached properties, if sold in public auction after confirmation, would likely fetch a higher value than the sum offered as security. Upon examining the matter, the Designated Court held that earlier writ proceedings relied upon by the Appellant did not amount to permission to sell properties that were already under attachment. The Court relied on the orders passed in CRLMP No. 1252 of 2016, W.P.(C) No. 18277 of 2023, and W.P.(C) No. 9910 of 2024 to conclude that none of those decisions contemplated release or sale of properties that were subject to an attachment under Section 3 of the O.P.I.D. Act. 9. The Designated Court further held that the ad-interim order of attachment dated 22.08.2024 was issued by the State Government in exercise of its statutory power to secure the interests of a large number of depositors who had been awaiting refund for several years. The Court observed that registration of the sale deeds was barred by Rule 4 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Rules, 2013, and that allowing release of the attached properties would adversely affect the depositors’ interests. 10. The learned Court also noted that once the Government has taken steps to protect the interests of depositors through attachment and proposed sale Page 13 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 by public auction, the responsibility for recovery could not be shifted to the Appellant. It was held that the decision in Gayadhar Jena v. State of Odisha4 was inapplicable in view of the distinct facts of the present case. 11. Proceeding on this reasoning, the Designated Court concluded that Section 11 did not empower the Court to release a portion of the attached property upon partial security, that the sum offered was not demonstrated to be adequate having regard to the total liability, and that no case was made out to cancel or modify the subsisting ad-interim attachment order. 12. Accordingly, the application under Section 11 filed by the Appellant seeking release of the properties from the ad-interim order of attachment dated 22.08.2024 was rejected. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 13. 14. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the learned Designated Court was justified in rejecting the Appellant’s application under Section 11 of the O.P.I.D. Act seeking release of certain attached properties upon furnishing security of Rs. 1,91,00,000. The core question, therefore, is whether Section 11 empowers the Designated Court to order release of a portion of the attached properties upon furnishing partial security, or whether the provision is confined to cancellation of the entire ad-interim attachment upon satisfaction of the security requirement. 16. To answer this question, it is necessary to examine the statutory scheme governing attachment and release of properties under the O.P.I.D. Act. 4 2024 OLR (I) 877. Page 14 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 17. Section 9(6) empowers the Designated Court, upon considering the materials placed before it, to make the ad-interim order of attachment absolute, to vary the order by releasing a portion of the property, to cancel the order of attachment, or to direct sale of the attached property by public auction. The proviso to Section 9(6) mandates that the Court shall not release any interest from attachment unless it is satisfied that property of value not less than the amount required for repayment remains under attachment. 18. Section 11 of the Act, on the other hand, provides an independent mechanism whereby the Designated Court may, if security to the satisfaction of the Court is furnished, cancel the ad-interim order of attachment or, as the case may be, refrain from passing an order under Section 9(6). The provision expressly restrains the Court, while acting under Section 11, from passing any order under Section 9(6). 19. The statutory distinction is thus clear. While Section 9(6) expressly contemplates variation of the attachment and release of a portion of the property, Section 11 is confined to cancellation of the ad-interim attachment upon furnishing security and operates in a field insulated from Section 9(6). The deliberate omission of any reference to partial release in Section 11 cannot be supplied by judicial interpretation. 20. Tested on this statutory framework, the submission of the Appellant that the power to cancel an attachment necessarily includes the power to modify or partially release it cannot be accepted. Such a construction would efface the express bar contained in Section 11 and collapse the distinction maintained by the legislature between Sections 9(6) and 11. The Page 15 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 reliance placed on decisions interpreting other statutes to support a broader construction cannot override the specific and restrictive language employed in the O.P.I.D. Act. 21. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the Appellant seeks release of specific parcels of land forming part of the fourth ad-interim attachment dated 22.08.2024 upon furnishing security corresponding to the consideration mentioned in five sale deeds. What is sought is not cancellation of the entire attachment but selective release of certain properties. Such relief squarely falls within the domain of Section 9(6) and is impermissible under Section 11. 22. The contention that the learned Designated Court ought to have undertaken an independent market valuation or resorted to valuation mechanisms under the Stamp Act does not advance the Appellant’s case. The impediment is jurisdictional. Even if a higher or more accurate valuation were to be ascertained, the Designated Court would still lack the statutory authority under Section 11 to grant partial release of the attached properties. Once Section 11 is found not to encompass partial release, an enquiry into valuation ceases to be determinative of the relief sought. 23. The learned Designated Court has correctly appreciated the effect of earlier orders passed in CRLMC No. 1252 of 2016, W.P.(C) No. 18277 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 9910 of 2024, and has rightly concluded that none of those proceedings authorised sale or release of properties already under attachment under the O.P.I.D. Act. The decision in Gayadhar Jena v. State of Odisha arose in a different factual context and does not assist the Appellant. Page 16 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31 24. In the considered view of this Court, the learned Designated Court has adopted a correct interpretation of the statutory scheme and has applied it to the facts with due regard to the larger statutory purpose involved. The impugned order does not suffer from perversity, irrationality, or misdirection in law. VI. CONCLUSION: 25. 26. 27. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Designated Court rejecting the Appellant’s application under Section 11 of the O.P.I.D. Act. The appeal is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 12th December, 2025/ Page 17 of 17