Ajaya Kumar Rout vs Regional Manager, RBI, Bhubaneswar And Another

K.R. Mohapatra, J

I.A. NO.1932 OF 2021

This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

This I.A. has been filed by Opposite Party No.2 to the writ petition-Branch Manager, Yes Bank Ltd., Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter called ‘the Applicant’) to recall order dated 8th January, 2021 by which the writ petition was disposed of.

Heard Ranjan Kumar Rout, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr.B.M.Sarangi, learned counsel for the Opposite Party (Petitioner in the writ petition).

Mr.Sarangi, learned counsel for the Opposite Party at the outset submits that he has no instruction from his client in spite of repeated communications. Hence, he submits that the Court may proceed with adjudication of the I.A. in accordance with law.

Mr.Rout, learned counsel for the Applicant Applicant-Bank submits that the Opposite Party by taking financial assistance from the Applicant-Bank had purchased a truck bearing registration No.OD02AH4725, As he defaulted in making payment of instalments, the Applicant-Bank approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing appropriate proceeding, which was registered as OA No.363 of 2020. Learned Tribunal, vide order dated 7th December, 2020, directed for attachment of the aforesaid vehicle and appointed Sri Deepak Panda as Advocate Commissioner to execute the said attachment order. He was also further directed to seize the vehicle from the custody of the Opposite Party (Defendant therein). The Applicant-Bank was also directed to cooperate the Advocate Commissioner in execution of the attachment order. Suppressing this material fact, present writ petition was filed and was disposed of on 8th January, 2021 at the stage of admission directing the Applicant-Bank not to take any coercive action against the Opposite Party (Petitioner in the writ petition) subject to payment of 50% of the outstanding dues within a period of four weeks.

1 It is further submitted by Mr.Rout, learned counsel that the Opposite Party has not yet complied with the aforesaid direction of this Court. Hence, he prays for recalling the said order dated 8th January, 2021 and to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary cost.

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 8th January, 2021 by which the writ petition was disposed of was an outcome of suppression of material facts. In that view of the matter, such an order should not be allowed to stand any further.

6.1 It further appears from the enclosures to the Interlocutory Application that the Opposite Party (Petitioner in the writ petition) was aware of the order dated 7th December, 2020 passed by learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack.

In that view of the matter, order dated 8th January, 2021 stands recalled and the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the Opposite Party (Petitioner in the writ petition) to the Applicant, which shall be deposited before learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack forthwith, failing which the same shall be recovered by learned Tribunal in accordance with law.

The I.A. is allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction.

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.