Orissa High Court
WP(C)/26204/2026 of SHUVASHREE SAHOO Vs AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BHUBANESWAR on 19 August 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26204 of 2026 ODHC010612622026 Shuvashree Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. Sritam Kumar Nayak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A . Pattnaik, Advocate -versus- Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Bhubaeswar and another …. Opp. Parties
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.26204 of 2026
ODHC010612622026
Shuvashree Sahoo
….
Petitioner
Mr. Sritam Kumar Nayak, Advocate
on behalf of
Mr. A. Pattnaik, Advocate
-versus-
Authorised Officer, State Bank
of India, Bhubaeswar and
another
….
Opp. Parties
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
19.08.2026 Order No.
01.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. The Petitioner in this Writ Petition seeks to assail the sale notice dated 20.07.20226 (Annexure-5) and E- auction notice dated 21.07.2026 (Annexure-6) issued by the Opposite Party No.1.
3. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the notice under Section 13(8) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, for brevity, „SARFAESI Act, 2002” has already been issued.
Amit/Rajesh
4. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel being authorized by Mr. A. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there are some procedural irregularity in issuing notice under Section 13(2) & 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and subsequent action of the Bank in issuing the sale notice as well as E-auction notice.
5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1-Bank vehemently objects to the same and submits that this Writ Petition itself is not maintainable. If the Petitioner seeks to assail the validity of the sale notice as well as E-auction notice, the remedy lies before Debts Recovery Tribunal, for brevity, “DRT” under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition.
7. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with an observation that the Petitioner, if so advised, may work out remedy before the DRT. He, if so advised, may also seek for interim relief before the DRT.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 20-Aug-2026 09:48:34 Signature Not Verified