The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.27280 of 2025 Prasanna Kumar Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. Prasanta Kumar Satapathy, Advocate -versus- 1. Canara Bank, Puri-II Branch, Puri 2. Canara Bank, Regional Office, BBSR, Nayapalli 3. Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, BBSR, Nayapalli 4. Collector -cum- District Magistrate, Puri 5. Superintendent of Police, Puri 6. Tahasildar, Puri 7. IIC, Kumbharpada police station, Puri …. Opp. Parties Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate for the Bank CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 27.10.2025 is This matter taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Prasanna Kumar Sahoo, with the following prayer: “The petitioner therefore prays that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to Page 1 of 7 Order No. 02. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 28-Oct-2025 15:16:17 admit this Writ Petition, call for the records, after hearing the parties issue writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or any other writ/directions, set aside the eviction notice dated 26.08.2025 under Annexure- 1 and direct the opp. parties/Bank authorities to accept the full out standing debt dues from the petitioner towards the loan accounts with interest and charges and settle the loan account as per RBI guideline as Govt. instruction.” Learned counsel for the Bank has filed the sale certificate dated 26.06.2024 issued by the Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, Puri-II Branch, Puri under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and submits that the third party interest has also been created. The sale certificate is taken on record. In case of United Bank of India -Vrs.- Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 110, in the case of Balkrishna Rama Tarle (dead through legal representatives) and another -Vrs.- Phoenix Arc Private Limited and others reported in (2023) 1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 28-Oct-2025 15:16:17 Supreme Court Cases 662 so also in the case of CELIR LLP -Vrs.- Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and others reported in (2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1, it has been held that the Page 2 of 7 High Court should not entertain the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when alternative remedy is available under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. In the case of Satyawati Tondon (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If Respondent 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under section 13(4) or action taken under section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under section 17(1). The expression “any person” used in section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under section 13(4) or section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective. 43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Page 3 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 28-Oct-2025 15:16:17 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.” In the case of Balkrishna Rama Tarle (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: Page 4 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 28-Oct-2025 15:16:17 “18. Thus, the powers exercisable by CMM/DM under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are ministerial steps and section 14 does not involve any adjudicatory process qua points raised by the borrowers against the secured creditor taking possession of the secured assets. In that view of the matter once all the requirements under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act are complied with/satisfied by the secured creditor, it is the duty cast upon the CMM/DM to assist the secured creditor in obtaining the possession as well as the documents related to the secured assets even with the help of any officer subordinate to him and/or with the help of an advocate appointed as Advocate Commissioner. At that stage, the CMM/DM is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor and/or between any other third party and the secured creditor with respect to the secured assets and the aggrieved party to be relegated to raise objections in the proceedings under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.” In the case of Bafna Motors (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: Page 5 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 28-Oct-2025 15:16:17 “110.3. In accordance with the unamended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset was available till the sale or transfer of such secured asset. In other words, the borrower’s right of redemption did not stand terminated on the date of the auction-sale of the secured asset itself and remained alive till the transfer was completed in favour of the auction-purchaser, by registration of the sale certificate and delivery of possession of the secured asset. However, the amended provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, make it clear that the right of the borrower to redeem the secured asset stands extinguished thereunder on the very date of publication of the notice for public auction under Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules. In effect, the right of redemption available to the borrower under the present statutory regime is drastically curtailed and would be available only till the date of publication of the notice under Rule 9(1) of the 2002 Rules and not till the completion of the sale or transfer of the secured asset in favour of the auction-purchaser.” In view of the sale certificate furnished by the learned counsel for the Bank and since the Page 6 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 28-Oct-2025 15:16:17 alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, it is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. If such remedy is made, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge ( S.S. Mishra) I.A. No.17247 of 2025 03. In view of the order passed today in W.P.(C) No.27280 of 2025, the I.A. also stand disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules. ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge Judge ( S.S. Mishra) Rajesh Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 28-Oct-2025 15:16:17 Page 7 of 7