M/S. Ganapati Aluminium, Madhipur, Balasore vs. Uco Bank, Balasore Zonal Office, Police Line Chhak, Balasore
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER
Order No. 06. 18.02.2026
This challenge by the borrower is to the coercive action of loan recovery instituted under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Both the sides argued the matter vociferously for some time. The Bank officials, on our request, personally participated in the proceedings, which we appreciate. Matter was passed over for exploring the possibility of amicable settlement.
On our request, learned Senior Advocate Mrs. Pami Rath mediated between the parties and brought them to the negotiating table. She has also minimized the gap
between the parties. This is really appreciable and accordingly, we place on record our appreciation.
The Bank complains that the Petitioner has not been regularly paying the accruing installments in the term loan, the term spanning up to the year 2031. Borrower has a long way to walk of course with the facility of reasonable installments, as has been agreed between the parties. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Bank tells us that the Petitioner has not been furnishing the official records such as GST Returns, balance-sheets of business account and stock records.
Petitioner is also personally present before the Court. His learned counsel on instruction submits that the Petitioner is agreeable to pay the interest and the penal interest as well normatively leviable for the delayed payments, if any, provided that the Bank gives the brake- up of the same with full particulars. He also agrees to furnish requisite documents that would ordinarily come to his hand in the due course of business. These documents inter alia comprise of GST Returns, Stock & Trade Account and the Business Account Records. We notice that the default is not financial in nature, inasmuch as almost all periodical installments have fallen due have been discharged.
The above being the position, Bank has to hold its hands back from putting the security property to auction or sale, or otherwise proceeding against the same. Now, the account having been certified as NPA, the Bank has to proceed for retracing its steps backward, after securing the necessary instructions from the higher ups, in a normative way. This should be done at the earliest and on a war footing, without unnecessarily troubling the borrower, who prima facie appears to be scrupulous. However, what all documents to be furnished in this regard and whatever money to be remitted to make the payment of installments regular & up to date, the Petitioner is bound to do that, hardly needs to be stated.
Learned Panel Counsel complains that the Petitioner has been dilly dallying before the DRT in Bank’s O.A. No.154 of 2023 without filing the Written Statement or otherwise participating in the proceedings. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner very fairly submits that the Written Statement would be filed within two weeks and that he has no objection whatsoever for the DRT to try & dispose off the pending OA on a normative basis. All contentions of the parties in that regard are kept
open.
With the above observations, this petition is disposed off requesting the DRT, Cuttack to decide the subject OA No. 154 of 2023 within an outer limit of six (6) months reckoned from this day. Till after and subject to outcome of the said OA, the security property shall not be put to auction nor to any stress & strain.
Costs made easy.
Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge Basu
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.