IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.13717 of 2022

Gokula Nanda Jena

….

Petitioner

Mr.Dillip Kumar Ray, Advocate.

-versus-

The Branch Manager, Odisha

State

Co-operative

Bank,

Sundargarh & another

….

Opp. Parties

Mr. D.K.Dhar,Adv.

For O.P.No.1

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order No.

ORDER

11.07.2023

01

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the Bank.

3.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking

direction from this Court to the opposite party No.2 to

refund the excess amount to the tune of Rs.2,74,632/- in

favour of him within a stipulated period with interest.

4.

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was an

employee of BSNL under Telecom District, Rourkela. While

he was working there as an Account Officer, he had availed

Digitally Signed

Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA

Designation: Sr. Stenographer

Reason:

eMudhra.App.Views.PartialControls.SigningModeTab.SigningTabVie

wModel

Location: Orissa High Court,Cuttack

Date: 18-Jul-2023 17:58:22

Signature Not Verified

// 2 //

Page 2 of 4

a housing loan to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs for which on

08.10.2007 he executed a term loan agreement with the

opposite party No.1. On 08.10.2007 the opposite party No.1

sanctioned order in favour of the petitioner in connection

with special housing loan and issued delivery order of loan

amount which has been duly received by the petitioner. The

petitioner used to repay the loan amount at regular interval

as per terms of agreement and to that effect the account

statement from 08.10.2007 to 31.12.2017 has been received

from the office of Opp. Party No.1 which reveals that the

petitioner without defaulter repaid the loan amount prior to

expiry of days as stated in the agreement. But the grievance

of the petitioner is the opposite party No.1 issued a letter to

the petitioner showing his outstanding loan amount is to

the tune of Rs.2,74,814/- even though he has repaid all the

loan amount. Further, he submitted a representation vide

Anneuxre-8 to opposite party No.2 requesting for

settlement of excess payment of loan dues which is still

pending.

5.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 has filed

counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioner was

granted loan at the rate of interest i..e. @ 11.50% per annum

and repayment period was fixed for 120 months. At the time

Digitally Signed

Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA

Designation: Sr. Stenographer

Reason:

eMudhra.App.Views.PartialControls.SigningModeTab.SigningTabVie

wModel

Location: Orissa High Court,Cuttack

Date: 18-Jul-2023 17:58:22

Signature Not Verified

// 3 //

Page 3 of 4

of sanction of the loan account, the EMI was filed at Rs.

6150/- per month instead of Rs.7030/- per month. After the

volunteer retirement of the petitioner on 30.11.2018 the

opposite party No.1 issued letter showing his outstanding

loan amount to the tune of Rs. 2,69,814 after being detected

from the records that the less EMI has been fixed at Rs.

6150/- per month instead of Rs.7030/- showing the

differential amounts was Rs.880/- per month. In calculating

the proper way the total outstanding of Rs.2,69,814/- was

identified as differential value which is recoverable from the

petitioner. The petitioner being fully aware of the facts

suppressing the facts before this Court claimed the amount

of Rs.2,74,632/- which is nothing but the same is liable to be

dismissed with cost.

6.

Considering the limited grievance of the petitioner

and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, this court directs that in the event of filing a fresh

representation along with the certified copy of this order by

the petitioner within a week hence, the opposite party No.1/

Branch Manager, Odisha State Co-operative Bank, Da