M/S. Anmol International Pvt. Ltd vs Secretary To Government Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 12600 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              W.P.(C) No.33903 of 2021

              M/s. Anmol International Pvt. Ltd.,     ....             Petitioner
              Rourkela
                                                    Mr. M. R. Dhal, Advocates
                                       -versus-
              Secretary to Government of India,       ....      Opposite Parties
              Ministry of Finance, New Delhi
              and others
                                                                             None

                        CORAM:
                        JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
                        JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
                                     ORDER(ORAL)

07.12.2021 Order No.

01. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Petitioner is stated to be a private company and for its hotel project at Rourkela, had raised loan of Rs.5,83,62,000/- in the year 2007 from the Housing and Development Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar Branch, Bhubaneswar. Due to default in payment of installments, the Corporation filed O.A. No.381 of 2011 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Cuttack by impleading the petitioner-borrower and the guarantor. The said O.A. was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 9th November 2016, whereby the borrower and the guarantor were held to be jointly and severally liable for recovery of sum of Rs.5,09,61,573/-, with interest.

// 2 //

3. To a pointed query, counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 9th November, 2016 stands filed by the petitioner and is pending before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata.

4. Now, the present writ has been filed seeking a direction to the Government, Ministry of Finance and more so, the Registrar, DRAT, Kolkata for initiating an inquiry regarding the fraud committed by the Presiding Officer, who has passed aforesaid decree and the Recovery Officer-Mr. S.K. Parida, who has sold the property in execution of the said decree.

5. At the time of hearing, counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the writ petition to enable his client to seek remedy in accordance with law.

6. The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with the aforesaid liberty.

(Jaswant Singh) Judge

(S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

December 7th, 2021 Cuttack