Page 1 of 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.17133 of 2021

Dr. Chitaranjan Das

…. Petitioner

Mr. B.B. Champatiray, Advocate

-versus-

Vice Chairman, BDA & Ors.

…. Opposite parties.

Ms. S.Pattnaik, AGA

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

Order No.

02.06.2021

02.

W.P.(C) No.17133 of 2021 &I.A. 7721/2021

1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode, in the

Vacation Court.

2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by a letter dated 18^th May, 2021

issued by the Bhubaneswar Development Authority acceding to

the prayer of the State Bank of India (Opp. Party No.3) (SBI) to

permit the transfer of the property that has been auctioned

pursuant to the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal

(DRT), Cuttack in favour of the Auction Purchaser (Opp. Party

No.4) during pendency of the Petitioner’s Regular Appeal (Diary)

// 2 //

Page 2 of 4

No.75 of 2021 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal

(DRAT), Kolkata.

3. Admittedly, in terms of notice dated 12^th June 2014 issued by

the SBI under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), the Petitioner owed the SBI

Rs. 54,08,672 (exclusive of further interest, expenses and costs)

and by 14^th May 2015 this appears to have increased to Rs.

56,82,631. The Petitioner claims to have paid the SBI Rs.10 lakhs

by the time his application S.A. No. 44 of 2018 under Section 17

(2) of the SARFAESI Act challenging the SBI’s e-auction notice

for the sale of the mortgaged property was considered by the DRT

Cuttack.

4. The DRT in its order dated 20^th January 2021 dismissing the

said application noted that initially by an order dated 25^th May,

2018 the DRT had stayed the auction conditional upon the

Petitioner depositing Rs. 50 lakhs. This was not complied with

and as a result the sale was confirmed in favour of the auction

purchaser on 31^st December, 2018. Further the DRT noted that

while pursuant to an OTS in respect of the housing loan

component, the Petitioner had deposited Rs. 2,19,626.72 with the

SBI, he failed to pay the next tranche of 25% of the OTS amount

within 30 days thereafter, thus rendering the OTS infructuous. In

light of the above facts, the DRT found no merit in the

Petitioner’s application SA No. 44 of 2018 and dismissed it by the

order dated 20^th January, 2021.

// 3 //

Page 3 of 4

5. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 20^th January, 2021 of the

DRT, the Petitioner filed the aforementioned appeal before the

DRAT, Kolkata, which is still pending. No interim order was

passed therein by the DRAT. It is stated to be listed next on 22^nd

June, 2021. In the meanwhile since the impugned letter was

issued in favour of SBI by the BDA permitting the transfer of the

auctioned property in favor of the auction purchaser, the

Petitioner has approached this Court in Vacation.

6. Despite the Court repeatedly asking the Petitioner to state what

the exact amount owed by the Petitioner to the SBI was as of date,

no clear or cogent answer was forthcoming from the learned

counsel for the Petitioner. Even accounting for the Rs. 10 lakhs

initially paid and the further amount of Rs. 2.20 lakhs paid by the

Petitioner towards OTS, the amount owed would be in excess of

Rs. 45 lakhs with further interest etc. from 14^th May 2015

onwards. The Court made it clear to the Petitioner that unless he

was prepared to deposit with the DRAT the entire amount due to

the SBI as of date, without prejudice to his rights and contentions,

the question of passing an interim order staying the operation of

the letter dated 8^th May, 2021 issued by the BDA permitting

transfer of the auctioned property in favour of the auction