Orissa High Court
WP(C)/17584/2026 of SOMANATH MOHANTY Vs IDBI BANK LTD, BHUBANESWAR on 19 August 2026
of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17584 OF 2026 CNR ODHC010416532026 Somanath Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. Kartik Chandra Tripathy, Advocate -versus- IDBI Bank Ltd., Bhubaneswar and another …. Opp. Parties Mr. Gurudutta Kar, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE KRUSHNARAM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.17584 OF 2026
CNR ODHC010416532026
Somanath Mohanty
….
Petitioner
Mr. Kartik Chandra Tripathy, Advocate
-versus-
IDBI Bank Ltd., Bhubaneswar and
another
….
Opp. Parties
Mr. Gurudutta Kar, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRUSHNARAM MOHAPATRA
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
Order No. 19.08.2026
03.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Counter affidavit by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2-Bank is filed in Court and is taken on record. Copy of the same is served on Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner in Court.
3. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to consider his proposal for regularization of loan account and settle the same under One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme.
4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.11594 of 2024 with similar nature of prayer and the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 13th April, 2024 (Annexure-3) granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Parties-Bank with a concrete proposal for One Time Digitally Signed Signed by: SASHIKANT PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 19-Aug-2026 17:35:02 Signature Not Verified
Settlement/Settlement of the outstanding loan dues for its consideration.
4.1 It was further observed that in the event such an application is filed by the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of the said order, the Opposite Parties- Bank would do well to consider the same in its proper perspective and dispose of the same in accordance with law without being influenced by earlier events in this connection.
5. Mr. Kar, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties-Bank referring to the counter affidavit submits that the Petitioner had not approached the Bank with a concrete proposal for OTS within the stipulated time. Hence, the Petitioner having not complied with the earlier direction of this Court, the present writ petition needs no consideration and is liable to be dismissed in limine.
6. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the letter under Annexure-1 (to the writ petition) submits that a proposal for OTS was filed on 16th April, 2026 offering an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The same was not considered by the Bank.
7. Mr. Kar, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties-Bank submits that no such application was ever received by the Bank. Further, the Petitioner had never turned up to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for consideration of his prayer for OTS as proposed in the letter under Annexure-1.
8. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the prayer for OTS was not considered the Petitioner has not deposited the said amount.
9. Taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Petitioner has not complied with the order dated 13th May, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.11594 of 2024 by submitting a concrete proposal for OTS within a period of two weeks from the date of the said order.
9.1 Although a proposal for OTS was filed after a lapse of almost two years, but the Petitioner had not complied with his offer of Rs.5,00,000/- for consideration of his proposal for OTS. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of any merit. It is, however, open to the Petitioner to workout remedy, if any, available under law for redressal of his grievances (but not by filing repeated writ petitions).
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Sashikant
Judge