SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Ori) 860

S.K.SAHOO
Tribikram Padhi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Pradipta Ku. Mohanty, Senior Advocate, for the Appellants; Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra Addl. Govt. Advocate, for the Respondent No. 1
Cases Referred
Amrendra Pratap Singh Vs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 3782
Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 532
B. Rangaiah Vs. B. Rangaswamy (1970) 2 Andh WR 181
Bhaskarabhotla Padmanabhaiah Vs. B. Lakshminarayana : AIR 1962 Andhra Pradesh 132
Bondar Singh Vs. Nihal Singh (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 161
Chandra Sekhar Misra Vs. Gobinda Chandra Das : A.I.R. 1966 Orissa 18
Firm Chuni Lal Tukki Mal Vs. Firm Mukat Lal Ram Chanda : AIR 1968 Allahabad 164
Guman Singh Vs. Manga Singh (2016) 3 Recent Civil Reports Civil 592
Omprakash Vs. Laxminarayan (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 618
Pandey Oraon Vs. Ram Chander Sahu A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 195
Ram Rattan Vs. Parmanand, AIR 1946 PC 51
Sanjeeva Reddi Vs. Johanputra Reddi AIR 1972 Andhra Pradesh 373
Siddanna Apparao Potil Vs. State of Maharashtra A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 977
T. Bhaskar Rao Vs. T. Gabriel, AIR 1981 Andhra Pradesh 175

JUDGMENT

Mr. S.K. Sahoo, J. - The appellants Tribikram Padhi and Smt. Sunita Padhi have filed this appeal under section 13 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (hereafter 'O.P.I.D. Act') with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court, O.P.I.D. Act, Cuttack in Interim Application No. 03 of 2017 in rejecting their objection petition dated 18.03.2017 under section 9(3) of the O.P.I.D. Act filed for intervention in the proceeding and for exempting the property of M/s. Hitech Estate and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. as per schedule from attachment, sale and consequently permit for execution of sale deed and transfer of such property in their favour.

2. It is the case of the appellants, as per the objection petition filed before the Designated Court under section 9(3) of the O.P.I.D. Act that they came to know that the State of Odisha, represented through A.D.M. -cum-Competent Authority, Cuttack has filed an application against M/s. Hitech Estate and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and others under section 4(3) of the O.P.I.D. Act for making the ad-interim order of attachment passed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top