Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJEEB K.PANIGRAHI
Golden land Developers Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. appellant's legal arguments and contentions (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's interpretation of statutory provisions (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. statutory limitations regarding property release (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 24) |
| 5. final decision and dismissal of the appeal (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
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:
(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
Section 11 of the O.P.I.D. Act only allows for the cancellation of entire ad-interim attachments upon satisfactory security, and not for partial releases.
The appeal was dismissed as the Designated Court's order for attachment of properties was found to comply with legal provisions without procedural violations, affirming the necessity of following sta....
The attachment of properties under the OPID Act, validated by proper procedural compliance, emphasizes the necessity of safeguarding depositor interests despite ex parte proceedings not infringing up....
The Designated Court under the OPID Act is not required to identify affected persons or quantify the money for equitable distribution, as per the provisions of the OPID Act.
Properties purchased with depositor funds are subject to attachment under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, regardless of subsequent transfers.
The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act allows for the attachment and sale of property to ensure repayment to depositors without requiring a prior conviction of the deposit takers.
The MPIDFE Act allows for the attachment of property to protect the interests of depositors, regardless of when the property was acquired. The affidavit filed by the competent authority complied with....
The court determined that, under the OPID Act, while sales of attached properties are generally restricted, the conditions for permitting such sales can be framed to protect depositors' interests.
when a statutory remedy is available, the Court may not normally entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is purely discretionary in nature.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
