The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.31914 of 2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Divyam Agarwal …. Petitioner(s) -versus- Indian Bank, represented through its Branch Manager, Padampur, Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC Mr. Sitansu Kumar Dey, Advocate for O.P No.2 Chinmaya Ku. Jena, Advocate for O.P No.3 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-06.03.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-11.04.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, challenges the E-auction sale notice dated 20.08.2023 and the E-auction held on 21.08.2023, conducted by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 Bank as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 17 (i) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 The Opposite Party No.2 Bank issued an E-auction sale notice dated 02.08.2023 for the sale of M/s Samleswari Rice Mill, including its plant and machinery, located over Khata No. 83/253, Plot No. 34 (Area: Ac. 0.970 Dec.) and Plot No. 38 (Area: Ac. 1.480 Dec.) of Mouza Pudelkhar, Tahasil Padampur, District Bargarh, as well as Khata No. 21112, Plot Nos. 205/451 and 206/452 (Area: Ac. 3.580 Dec.) of Mouza Salebahali, Tahasil Padampur, District Bargarh. (ii) The Petitioner, being interested in the said property, approached Opposite Party No.2 seeking further details. Upon examining the documents provided, including a sketch map, the Petitioner decided to participate in the E-auction. (iii) On 19.08.2023, the Petitioner deposited 10% of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), amounting to ₹37,20,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Seven Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only). The Petitioner participated in the auction on 21.08.2023 and was declared the highest bidder vide email dated 22.08.2023. (iv) The Petitioner deposited an additional ₹89,55,000/- (Rupees Eighty- Nine Lakhs Fifty-Five Thousand Only) towards 25% of the bid amount on 23.08.2023 and requested a period of 20 days to deposit the remaining 75%. (v) The Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 permitted the request, subject to the condition that interest would be payable on the delayed deposit. (vi) On 28.09.2023, the Petitioner deposited the remaining ₹3,80,25,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Eighty Lakhs Twenty-Five Thousand Only), partly financed by a loan of ₹3,09,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Nine Page 2 of 17 Signature Not Verified
Legal Reasoning
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 Lakhs Only) availed from Opposite Party No.3, i.e., Canara Bank, Sambalpur. (vii) On 30.09.2023, the Petitioner deposited ₹3,36,912/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred Twelve Only) as interest for the delayed period (07.09.2023 to 28.09.2023), bringing the total payment to ₹5,10,36,912/- (Rupees Five Crores Ten Lakhs Thirty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred Twelve Only). A Certificate of Sale was issued in the Petitioner’s favour on the same day. (viii) For the purpose of registration and mutation, the Petitioner, on 18.10.2023, requested Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 to provide the sketch map of the property. In response, the Bank, on 19.10.2023, shared the sketch map via email, clarifying that the property was sold based on that sketch map, which depicted an access road to the auctioned property. (ix) Upon initiating steps for registration before the concerned Sub- Registrar, the Petitioner became aware that the property inherently lacked an approach road. The Petitioner promptly contacted the Bank for clarification and started becoming inquisitive about the approach road. (x) On 20.10.2023, the Bank forwarded a modified sketch map following a demarcation of the property. The updated map indicated that the auctioned plots were surrounded by private lands and had no clear access road, raising concerns regarding ingress and egress to the property. Page 3 of 17 (xi) The Petitioner approached the Bank, requesting that the property be Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 Signature Not Verified delivered with access as depicted in the initial sketch map. However, no further steps were taken by the Bank in this regard. (xii) The Petitioner then approached the Orissa Human Rights Commission. Vide order dated 12.08.2024, the said Commission directed the Bank either to deliver the property with ingress and egress or to refund the full bid amount with commercial interest, along with compensation of ₹20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only), within one month. (xiii) The Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 challenged the Orissa Human Rights Commission order in W.P.(C) No. 26023 of 2024, which is currently pending before this Court. (xiv) Due to the absence of road access, the rice mill and the purchased property have become functionally unusable. In the meantime, the Opposite Party No. 3 has informed the Petitioner of the outstanding dues and indicated that, in the event of non-payment, the loan account may be classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in accordance with applicable banking regulations. (xv) Aggrieved by the circumstances arising from the E-auction process and the subsequent developments, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The Petitioner submitted that the sketch map initially provided by the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 as part of the auction documents clearly Page 4 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 depicted road access to the auctioned plot. However, after the Petitioner had paid the entire bid amount, a revised sketch map was shared on 20.10.2023, which revealed that no such access road existed. The property was, in fact, landlocked and inaccessible. The Petitioner contended that this vital fact was deliberately suppressed at the time of auction, amounting to suppression of facts, fraud and misrepresentation. (ii) The Petitioner submitted that Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 failed to disclose material discrepancies associated with the auctioned property and, by suppressing such crucial information, extracted a substantial amount of ₹5,10,36,912/- (Rupees Five Crores Ten Lakhs Thirty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred Twelve Only), including interest, from the Petitioner. This is nothing but suppression of facts by a Public Financial Institution to the Petitioner. (iii) The Petitioner asserted that Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2, through their official communication, expressly admitted that the original sketch map was the basis upon which the loan was sanctioned and the property was put to auction. Having acknowledged the said map, Opposite Parties are now estopped from denying road access and are duty-bound either to provide the auctioned property with a well-defined ingress and egress within a time-bound manner or, failing that, refund the entire bid amount with commercial interest. (iv) The Petitioner contended that Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2, being entities incorporated under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and licensed by the Reserve Bank of India, are public institutions discharging essential Page 5 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 banking functions. The suppressing of material facts in the present case constitutes a serious lapse, unbecoming of a responsible banking institution entrusted with public confidence. (v) The Petitioner further contended that Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 have, through official emails, admitted that the original sketch map showing road access was the basis for both sanctioning the loan and conducting the E-auction. Having acknowledged the foundational document of the transaction, the Opposite Parties are now barred from denying its implications. They must either provide road access within a reasonable timeframe or refund the entire bid amount with applicable commercial interest. (vi) The Petitioner further reiterated that the Opposite Parties, being public sector banks regulated under the Banking Regulation Act, were under a legal and fiduciary obligation to act fairly, transparently, and in good faith. The suppression of a material fact concerning the property’s access constitutes a breach of public trust and falls short of the high standards of integrity expected from banking institutions. (vii) The Petitioner also submitted that the Opposite Parties violated Section 55(1)(a) and (b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, by failing to disclose the material defect of non-existent road access. In support of this submission, the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Haryana Financial Corporation v. Rajesh Gupta1 1 (2010) 1 SCC 655. Page 6 of 17 wherein it was held that such non-disclosure amounts to breach of statutory duty, warranting the auction’s invalidation. (viii) The Petitioner submitted that the act of auctioning a landlocked plot Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 based on a fraudulent and misleading sketch map amounts to an arbitrary and illegal exercise of power. The deliberate suppression of material facts renders the auction sale void ab initio. Furthermore, Opposite Party No. 2, being the Authorized Officer under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, failed to comply with Rule 8(7)(a) and (f), which mandate disclosure of material facts and encumbrances. This omission vitiates the transparency and integrity of the auction process and defeats the statutory protections afforded to auction purchasers. (ix) The Petitioner submitted that the failure of the Bank to deliver possession of the property with proper ingress and egress has caused significant financial hardship, as the Petitioner has been unable to implement intended development plans. The Petitioner continues to suffer mental and emotional distress due to the prolonged inaction. (x) The Petitioner further submitted that a loan was availed from Opposite Party No. 3, Canara Bank, for the purpose of purchasing the property. Due to the non-existence of road access, the rice mill and the land remain unusable. Nevertheless, Opposite Party No. 3 is pressuring the Petitioner to repay the loan and has issued warnings regarding classification of the loan account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), despite the impossibility of utilizing the property for its intended purpose. Page 7 of 17 (xi) The Petitioner submitted that in light of the aforesaid facts and Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 Signature Not Verified circumstances, the E-auction sale notice dated 02.08.2023 and the consequential sale of the subject property stand vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, and material non-disclosure. The Petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction to Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 to refund the entire amount paid, along with interest at commercial rates, within a period of fifteen days. The Petitioner further prays that Opposite Party No. 3 be restrained from taking any coercive action in respect of the loan account until such refund is effected by Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. (i) The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
Decision
The writ petition is not maintainable as the alleged cause of action arises from a contractual obligation. The relief sought is a money claim, which cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction. The petition amounts to an abuse of process and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. (ii) The Petitioner, being an auction purchaser under a competitive bid conducted as per Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, has an alternate statutory remedy under Section 17 of the said Act. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. (iii) The sale notice clearly stated that the property was being sold on “AS IS WHERE IS,” “AS IS WHAT IS,” and “WITHOUT RECOURSE” basis. It was also explicitly mentioned that the Authorized Officer had taken Page 8 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 possession under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Further, a specific inspection period from 07.08.2023 to 20.08.2023 was indicated, providing the Petitioner ample opportunity to verify the property’s condition and access. (iv) On 04.11.2023, physical possession of the secured assets was taken following due process under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, in the presence of the Assistant Collector and local police. The Petitioner was repeatedly intimated in person and through communications including letter dated 02.12.2023 to take over possession and complete registration of the Sale Certificate but failed to do so. The secured premises are enclosed within a compound wall with a gate, and due to the Petitioner’s inaction, the Opposite Parties have been compelled to incur continuous expenditure towards watch and ward by deploying six security personnel. (v) While the matter stood thus and the Petitioner did not come forward to take possession of the property sold, the Opposite Party Bank received a notice from the Odisha Human Rights Commission in Case No. 3384/2023, along with a complaint filed by the Petitioner on identical allegations as raised in the present writ petition. (vi) In response to the said notice, the Opposite Party Bank submitted a detailed reply, narrating the aforesaid facts and further stating that a similar application had also been filed by the Petitioner before the Banking Ombudsman on the very same grounds. It was also submitted that the action initiated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, had been assailed by the borrowers before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack, Page 9 of 17 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act in SA No. 138/2023, wherein the Petitioner–auction purchaser was impleaded as a party. (vii) The said SA was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 another SA has been filed by the borrower before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack. It was further contended that the SARFAESI Act, 2002, is a self-contained statute, and there has been no fault, illegality, or procedural irregularity on the part of the Bank in enforcing its rights under the Act. There has been no suppression of material facts nor any allegation by the Petitioner that the actions taken by the Bank were not in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Moreover, there is no provision under the statute for refund of the bid amount after issuance of the Sale Certificate unless a competent Tribunal, under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, records a finding that the measures adopted by the Secured Creditor were not in accordance with the Act or the Rules. (viii) Despite the above submissions made by the Opposite Party Bank in its response, the Learned Odisha Human Rights Commission, vide order dated 12.08.2024, disposed of the complaint with a recommendation to the appropriate authority of the Bank to either (a) deliver possession of the auctioned property along with ingress and egress rights, as shown in the sketch map, to the Petitioner within one month, and pay compensation equivalent to the interest paid by the Petitioner at commercial rates for the period until physical delivery of the property is effected, or (b) in the alternative, return the entire deposited amount with interest at the commercial rate applicable to the loan allegedly Page 10 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 availed by the Petitioner from Canara Bank for financing the bid amount. It was further observed that the Petitioner had received a notice from Canara Bank demanding repayment of the said loan, and that a compensation of ₹20,00,000/- was to be paid to the Petitioner by 31st October for the alleged violation of his human rights. (ix) The Petitioner has challenged the said order of the Odisha Human Rights Commission before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 26023/2024, and the operation of the said order has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 21.10.2024. In the said Writ Petition, though the present Petitioner has entered appearance, repeated adjournments are being sought on his behalf. (x) It is further submitted that the Opposite Party Bank has not violated any provision of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 or the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, the contentions made under Section 8(7)(a) and 8(7)(b) are misconceived and denied, especially since no appeal has been filed under Section 17 of the said Act. It is also clarified that no sketch map was provided with the sale notice or formed part of the auction documents. The alleged sketch map dated 20.10.2023 was never part of the official sale documents. The Opposite Parties did not suppress any material information at the time of auction, as wrongly alleged by the Petitioner. The allegations regarding discrepancies in the auctioned property, claims of fraud, misrepresentation, or that the Bank extorted any amount, are baseless, incorrect, and are expressly denied. (xi) Despite repeated requests made to the Petitioner to take over possession of the property, the Petitioner has failed to do so. As a result, the Page 11 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 Opposite Party Bank has been compelled to incur unnecessary expenses towards watch and ward for safeguarding the secured assets. The Petitioner is liable to reimburse the Opposite Parties for such expenses. (xii) The writ petition fails to disclose that the dispute arises under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, in respect of which an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 17 is available. Suppression of this material fact disentitles the Petitioner from invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties and perused the materials placed on record. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking relief against the actions of the Opposite Parties Bank concerning the sale of a property purchased by the petitioner through an auction. The petitioner contends that the Bank failed to disclose a material defect in the property, specifically the absence of access roads, which is crucial for the intended use of the property as a rice mill. Before delving into the specifics of the case, it is pertinent to examine the relevant legal framework that governs such transactions. The "As Is Where Is" clause in property transactions signifies that the property is sold in its current condition, with all visible or hidden defects, and the buyer accepts it as such. However, while this clause relieves the seller from liability for defects that are discoverable with ordinary diligence, it does not absolve the Page 12 of 17 seller from the duty to disclose material defects that are not readily apparent and which the buyer could not have reasonably discovered. 10. Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, imposes a clear duty on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 the seller to disclose any material defects in the property known to them, which the buyer could not have reasonably discovered. This duty extends to defects that are substantial enough to affect the value or usability of the property, which would, in turn, influence the buyer’s decision. The relevant portion of the provision is replicated hereinunder: “55. Rights and liabilities of buyer and seller.—In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the buyer and the seller of immoveable property respectively are subject to the liabilities, and have the rights, mentioned in the rules next following, or such of them as are applicable to the property sold: (1) The seller is bound— (a) to disclose to the buyer any material defect in the property [or in the seller's title thereto] of which the seller is, and the buyer is not, aware, and which the buyer could not with ordinary care discover; (b) to produce to the buyer on his request for examination all documents of title relating to the property which are in the seller's possession or power;” 11. In Haryana Financial Corporation (supra), the Supreme Court in this regard observed: “A mere perusal of the aforesaid provision will show that it was incumbent upon the appellant Corporation to disclose to the respondent about the non-existence of the independent Page 13 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 passage to the unit. It was also the duty of the appellant Corporation to inform the respondent that the passage mentioned in the revenue record was not fit for the movement of vehicles. The appellant Corporation also failed to produce to the buyer the entire documentation as required by Section 55(1)(b) of the aforesaid section. We are therefore satisfied that the appellant Corporation cannot seek to rely on the aforesaid provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.” 12. In the present case, the petitioner purchased the property, which was a rice mill, from the Opposite Party Bank through an auction. On 18.10.2023, the petitioner requested the Bank to provide a sketch map of the property for registration and mutation purposes. The Bank provided the requested map on 19.10.2023, confirming that the property was sold with an access road. This representation was crucial for the petitioner, as the presence of an access road was necessary for the operation of a rice mill, a commercial enterprise is bound to have vehicular access for delivery and transportation purposes. 13. However, during the registration process, the petitioner discovered that the property lacked an approach road. The petitioner immediately contacted the Bank for clarification. On 20.10.2023, the Bank sent a revised map, revealing that the property was surrounded by Rayati land, making it landlocked. This discovery was highly detrimental to the petitioner, as the absence of access roads rendered the property essentially useless for its intended purpose as a rice mill. The Bank’s failure to disclose this defect at the time of the auction had led the Page 14 of 17 petitioner to make a significant financial commitment based on an inaccurate representation. 14. In its defence, the Bank invokes the "As Is Where Is" clause, arguing that Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 the property was sold in its existing condition, and the buyer should have been aware of the absence of details regarding the access road. The Bank claims no liability for the lack of access, asserting that the petitioner should have performed due diligence before proceeding with the auction. The Bank further contends that it is under no obligation to ensure the suitability of the property for the buyer's intended use, especially when the buyer has agreed to purchase the property in its existing state and form. 15. However, the law is settled that the duty of disclosure extends beyond physical defects to include functional defects such as a lack of access that significantly impacts the use of the property. The failure to disclose such a material defect, which impedes the intended use of the property, constitutes a violation of the seller’s duty under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In this case, the Bank's failure to disclose the landlocked nature of the property amounts to a non-disclosure of a material defect, which is detrimental to the petitioner’s ability to use the property for its intended purpose. 16. As a public sector bank, the Bank is bound by principles of fairness, transparency, and good faith in all its dealings, especially when it concerns the sale of public property. Public authorities, such as the Bank in this case, cannot rely on technical clauses like "As Is Where Is" to shield themselves from the duty of disclosure when such information is Page 15 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 material to the buyer’s decision-making process. The Bank’s actions are governed not only by contractual obligations but also by the overarching duty to act in the public interest and with due regard to the buyer’s rights. 17. In the present case, the petitioner relied on the Bank’s representations, including the sketch map provided, in good faith, assuming that the property was accessible. The subsequent revelation that the property was landlocked due to the Bank’s failure to disclose this material defect severely impacted the petitioner’s intended use of the property as a rice mill. The petitioner has now found themselves in a position where they are unable to use the property for its intended commercial purpose, leading to significant financial hardship. 18. This Court finds that the Opposite Party Bank, failed to discharge its legal and ethical duty to disclose a material defect that would significantly affect the utility of the property. The petitioner’s reliance on the Bank’s representations was reasonable, and the Bank’s failure to disclose the defect in the property constitutes an actionable wrong under the Transfer of Property Act. The Bank’s actions amount to misrepresentation, and as a result, the petitioner is entitled to appropriate relief. 19. Accordingly, this Court holds that the Bank is liable for failing to disclose the material defect in the property. The petitioner is entitled to appropriate relief. Page 16 of 17 V. 20. 21. 22. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 CONCLUSION: In light of the foregoing, The Opposite Party Bank is directed to either deliver the property to the Petitioner with the ingress and egress rights available for access to the property, as shown in the sketch map, within one month from the date of this judgment/order. Alternatively, the Bank shall refund the entire amount deposited by the Petitioner, along with interest at the commercial rate for the entire period until the physical delivery of the auction property. The Petitioner is entitled to interest at the commercial rate for the period of non-delivery of the property until the full restitution or delivery of the property as per the option chosen by the Petitioner. This interest is to be calculated from the date of the auction until the full performance of the Bank’s obligations under this order. 23. In the event the Bank fails to comply with either of the options within the prescribed time, the Petitioner shall be entitled to take appropriate legal action to enforce this order and claim further damages, if any, for the continued non-performance of the Bank’s duties under the agreement. 24. 25. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 11th April, 2025/ (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Page 17 of 17