Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
UCO BANK vs NABIN SHANKAR MAJHI on 11 September 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Misc. Appl. Dy. No. 819 of 2026
(Arising out of SA 90/2025 – DRT- Cuttack)
**THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON**
Order No. 03
11.09.2026
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.
1. UCO BANK Bhadrak Branch, Kancheri Road, PO/PS/Dist. Bhadrak – 756100, Odisha.
... Appellant
--Vs--
1. 1. Nabin Shankar Majhi Residing At Vill.- Apartibindha, Po & Dist- Bhadrak, Odisha – 756100
2. 2. Sushanta Majhi Residing At Vill.- Apartibindha, Po & Dist- Bhadrak, Odisha - 756100
3. 3. Laxmipriya Majhi Residing At Village- Apartibindha, Po And District- Bhadrak
4. 4. The Principal Secretary Govt Of Odisha At Odisha Secretariat, Lok Seva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, Khurda 751001
5. 5. The Chairman, Agricultural Promotion And Investment Corporation Of Odisha Ltd At Plot No 302, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Khurda 751001
6. 6. The Collector And District Magistrate Bhadrak At Collectorate, Bhadrak, Odisha – 756100.
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. R. N. Ghosh , Id. Sr. Adv. Ms. Tanya Ghosh, Id. Adv.
For Respondent :
**THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL**
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. None is present for the respondent.
Instant appeal is preferred against the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by learned DRT- Cuttack whereby interim protection was granted in favour of the securitization applicant directing bank not to proceed further subject to deposit of Rs.11.00 lakhs in two installments by the securitization applicant failing which interim protection shall be vacated.
Learned counsel for appellant would submit that securitization applicant had made an argument before the learned
DRT that secured property cannot be sold as per provisions of OLR Act and this is his only residential house. It is further submitted that although provisions of OLR Act would not be applicable in the present case, however, considering the submission made by the securitization applicant impugned order was passed by the learned DRT.
As far as impugned order is concerned, it is reflected from the order that interim protection was granted in favour of the securitization applicant, on the submission made by the secured creditor, subject to deposit of Rs.11.00 lakhs. Hence, this portion of the order does not require any interference.
As far as issue of applicability of the provisions of OLR Act is concerned, this issue shall remain open for consideration by the learned DRT at the time of final disposal of the S.A. Learned DRT shall not be influenced by the observation recorded in the body of the judgment.
Appeal stands disposed of at the admission stage. I.A. 566 of 2026 and I.A. 567 of 2026 shall also stand disposed of.
File be consigned to record room.
Copy of the Order be uploaded in the Tribunal's website.
Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11<sup>th</sup> day of September, 2026.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson
Dated : 11.09.2026 04/pkb
11.09.2026