Page 1 of 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(c) No.26813 of 2021

Banti Kumar Agarwal and others

&.

Petitioners

Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, Advocate

-versus-

The Presiding Officer, DRT,

Cuttack and others.

&.

Opposite Parties

Mr. Durga Charan Sabat, Advocate

(for opposite party nos.2 & 3-Bank)

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA

JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

Order No.

ORDER

03.09.2021

01.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners

and Mr. D. C. Sabat, learned counsel appearing in caveat for

the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 i.e. SBI, Stressed Assets

Recovery Branch, Sambalpur and SBI, Bhawanipatna.

3. In this writ application, the petitioners have prayed that the

opposite party nos. 2 and 3 may be directed not to take any

coercive measure against the petitioners till their interim

application is taken up by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal,

Cuttack.

// 2 //

Page 2 of 3

4. It is not disputed that proceedings were initiated against the

petitioners and a possession notice has been issued giving seven

days time to the petitioners to vacate the premises, which is

expiring today. Even before 31.08.2021, the petitioners initiated

a proceeding before the DRT, Cuttack, bearing S.A.

No.96/2021. The matter was placed before the DRT, Cuttack

on 01.09.2021, but the DRT did not take up the interim

application. It is stated by Mr. S.K. Acharya, learned counsel

for the petitioners that an oral direction was given to adjourn

the case to 06.10.2021. However, later on order-sheet reflected

that the case will be taken up on 13.09.2021. The learned

counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners have

submitted an OTS proposal and offered Rs.8 crores to the Bank

and on 02.09.2021, the petitioners have already deposited a

sum of Rs.79 lakhs before the Bank. Learned counsel for the

Bank submits that since an OTS proposal is pending and the

petitioners have actually deposited Rs.79 lakhs with the Bank,

their case shall be considered and till then, no coercive action

shall be taken against the petitioners. However, learned counsel

for the petitioners submits that the Bank may reject the OTS

proposal and immediately take possession of the property in

question.

5. In all fitness of the matter, the DRT, Cuttack should have

considered the application for interim protection at the earliest,

especially while a valuable property of the petitioners is

involved in this case.

// 3 //

Page 3 of 3

6. So, we dispose of the writ application directing the DRT,

Cuttack to take up the interim application on the next date i.e.

13.09.2021 and dispose of the same on merit without being

influenced by this order. In the meantime, the opposite party

nos. 2 and 3 may file their objection to the interim application.

The opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are at liberty to settle the NPA

on OTS scheme and the pendency of the DRT proceeding shall

not be a bar for the same. Till the interim application is decided

on merit, no coercive action shall be taken by the opposite party

no.2 and 3 against the petitioners.

7. Since this order is passed in the presence of Mr. D.C. Sabat,

learned counsel for the Bank appearing in caveat, we hope and

trust this should be a effective communication about this order

passed by us to the Bank.

8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

(S.K. Mishra )

Judge

(Savitri Ratho )

Judge

pcd