Orissa High Court
WP(C)/12934/2026 of M/S AMBRIT SAUDAGAR AND VENTURES, KHORDA Vs AUTHORISED OFFICER, PUNJAB AND SIND BANK, CUTTACK on 24 June 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.12934 of 2026 M/s Ambrit Saudagar and Ventures, Khorda & another …. Petitioners Mr. A . Mohanty, Adv. -Versus- Authorised Officer, Punjab and Sind Bank Bajrakbati Road Branch, Cuttack …. Opp. Parties Mr. C. Behera, Adv. for the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.12934 of 2026
M/s Ambrit Saudagar and Ventures,
Khorda & another
….
Petitioners
Mr. A. Mohanty, Adv.
-Versus-
Authorised Officer, Punjab and Sind
Bank Bajrakbati Road Branch,
Cuttack
….
Opp. Parties
Mr. C. Behera, Adv. for the Caveator
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No.
02.
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
24.06.2026
Challenge is by the borrower to the coercive recovery proceedings eventually resulting into auction sale of security property on 27.02.2026.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners vehemently argues that the entire proceedings are marked by so many illegalities and therefore the Writ Court should come to the aid of his client. Per contra, the Opposite Party-Bank having entered caveate through the counsel opposes the Petition contending that the Petitioners have got an alternate and more efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and therefore, in the absence of any extraordinary circumstances the Writ Court should not grant interference. We agree with this because that has been the practice all through in this Court subject to all just exceptions into which argued case of the Petitioners do not fit.
3. The above being said the Bank has to furnish full details of the auction, name of the auction buyer and the like to the Petitioners so that they can avail the remedy under Section 17 of the Act. This, the Bank has to do within a period of one week.
In the above circumstances, this Petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the Petitioners to take pursuit of alternate remedy under Section 17 of the 2002 Act. We make it clear that for the computation of period of limitation prescribed under Section 17, the reckoning point would be the date on which all the material particulars of the auction are furnished by the Bank to the Petitioners.
No costs.
Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna S. Dixit) Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge
Prasant
Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 25-Jun-2026 10:18:22 Signature Not Verified