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.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. S.J. Biswal, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. B. Bhuyna, learned Special Counsel for OPID, Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 and Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the intervenor-applicants.

2. The Appellant is the accused in EOW P.S. Case No.9, dated 15.03.2015 registered for commission of offences under Sections 467 /468/471/406/420/120-B, I.P.C. and Section 6 of the OPID Act.

3. The interim attachment proceeding has been initiated against the Appellant, namely Gayadhar Jena, Managing Director of Sarala Realcon Pvt. Ltd. in I.A. No.6 of 2016 arising out of C.T. No.10/2015, pending in the court of learned P.O., Designated Court (under OPID Act), Cuttack. In the said proceeding, the Appellant filed a petition dated 11.10.2018 seeking permission to sell the scheduled properties to the specified buyers to enable him to deposit the sale proceedings.

4. As per the allegations, the Appellant has collected around Rs.17 crores from various depositors.

5. Mr. S.J. Biswal, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that, if the Appellant will be permitted to sell the properties in six lots, as mentioned in his affidavit dated 06.03.2023, out of the attached properties, he could be able to deposit the entire amount alleged against him. In his affidavit dated 06.03.2023, the names of prospective buyers of such properties have been mentioned and the proposed sale consideration amounts have also been indicated. According to Mr. Biswal, those properties in six lots proposed to be sold to such buyers would at least fetch the consideration amount to the tune of Rs.16,08,35,000/-. It is also submitted that the Appellant has already deposited more than rupees three crores at the time of his release on bail.

6. In course of hearing, Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that, the properties mentioned at Serial Nos.6, 7, 8 & 9 of Lot No.1, as per the affidavit dated 06.03.2023, has been agreed to be sold in favour of Respondent No.2, for which the Appellant had already received the advance amount of Rs.32,55,000/-. According to learned counsel for Respondent No.2, the balance amount remains to be paid is Rs.4,45,000/-.

7. Regarding the proposed sale consideration amount as submitted by the Appellant and indicated in his affidavit dated 06.03.2023, reply was sought for from Mr. Bhuyan about sufficiency of the valuation of the properties mentioned by the Appellant. A reply has been filed on 20^th March, 2024 by the Investigating Officer stating that, the Bench Mark Valuation in respect of such proposed properties comes to Rs.13,94,64,174/-. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit dated 20.03.2024 is reproduced below.

“5. That, accordingly requisitions were sent to Sub-Registrar, Kanika, Balianta, Khandagiri, Khurda and Chandabali to provide the Bench March Valuation of the proposed properties and these authorities have duly furnished the same. The copies of those letters are enclosed here with for kind perusal.

6. That, on calculation of the amount of the Bench Mark Valuation in respect of the proposed properties comes to Rs.13,94,64,174/- (Thirteen Crore Ninety Four Lakhs Sixty Four Thousands One Hundred Seventy Four).”

8. In the impugned order, the learned OPID Court has rejected the prayer of the Appellant mainly on the ground that, there is no such provision in the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, 2011 (OPID Act) for sell of the property during subsistence of the interim attachment and pending decision on the same under Section 9 of the Act.

9