Orissa High Court
WP(C)/18354/2026 of M/S RAM AWATAR SHARMA, KEONJHAR Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA, KEONJHAR on 23 June 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18354 of 2026 M/S RAM AWATAR SHARMA, Keonjhar & Others …. Petitioners Mr. T. Pattanayak, Advocate -Versus- State Bank of India, Keonjhar & Another …. Opp. Parties Mr. P. Dash, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18354 of 2026
M/S RAM AWATAR SHARMA,
Keonjhar & Others
….
Petitioners
Mr. T. Pattanayak, Advocate
-Versus-
State Bank of India, Keonjhar &
Another
….
Opp. Parties
Mr. P. Dash, Advocate
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
23.06.2026
Challenge is to the coercive proceedings essentially culminating into an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Petitioners-borrower having not scrupulously repaid the outstanding loan.
2. Learned counsel-Mr. Pattanayak appearing for the Petitioners draws our attention to a part of the pleadings relating to the disease of Cancer suffered by his client’s spouse and that was in the year 2012. Therefore, that ground has not much impressed us to exercise our jurisdiction animated with human value as such.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners also submits that his clients are ready and willing to make pre-deposit of 10% and therefore, reprieve should be granted by the Writ Court. This is opposed by the learned Panel Counsel-Mr. Pratik Dash appearing for the lender-Bank, who highlights the number of opportunities given to the Petitioners to scrupulously pay the outstanding installment, which they did not. He tells us that Writ Court should not grant interference in matters like this, inasmuch as Petitioners have got alternate and more efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the Act. No extraordinary circumstances are demonstrated before us to take a deviant way of interference.
In the above circumstances, the petition is disposed off relegating the Petitioners to the alternate remedy as indicated above by the learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Bank to facilitate invocation of that remedy, the parties are requested to lay their hands off qua the coercive proceedings for a period of two weeks. All contentions are kept open and nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed by the DRT while considering either main matter or the request for reprieve. If this limited reprieve granted now is not invoked, it is open to the lender-Bank to precipitate the matter in the way known to law.
Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna S. Dixit) Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge
Madhusmita
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 23-Jun-2026 16:48:12 Signature Not Verified