Orissa High Court

Baladev Panda vs Chief General Manager on 7 November, 2025

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                                                 Signature Not Verified
                                                                 Digitally Signed
                                                                 Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
                                                                 Reason: Authentication
                                                                 Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
                                                                 Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 W.P.(C) No.27830 of 2019
            (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
            Constitution of India, 1950).

        Baladev Panda                               ....                     Petitioner(s)
                                     -versus-
        Chief General Manager, State Bank ....                  Opposite Party (s)
        of India, Bhubaneswar & Ors.

      Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

        For Petitioner(s)             :              Ms. Baijayanti Mohanty, Adv.

        For Opposite Party (s)        :              Mr. Dilip Kumar Mishra, Adv.

                    CORAM:
                    DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                        DATE OF HEARING:-24.10.2025
                       DATE OF JUDGMENT:-07.11.2025
      Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to

quash the order dated 26.07.2019 issued by the Chief Manager, SBI

Pattamundai Branch, refunding ₹1,490 towards alleged excess interest,

and to direct the Bank to refund ₹4,11,677 with interest and

compensation.

I.    FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

 2.   The brief facts of the case are as follows:

      (i)     The petitioner, a former officer of the State Bank of India,

challenges the Chief Manager, SBI Pattamundai Branch's order

dated 26.07.2019, by which the bank refunded ₹1,490 towards

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

alleged excess interest on his four housing loan accounts, payment

for which was made on 29.07.2019.

(ii) The petitioner had served in the SBI for about 22 years, availing

four housing loans from Pattamundai Branch on 04.06.1990,

09.02.1998, 25.06.2001, and 21.04.2003 respectively. These loans

were secured against the mortgage of his land and building.

(iii) Under SBI's internal staff housing loan policy, when an employee

is transferred, the housing loan account remains at the original

branch while salary deductions continue at the new place of

posting, and the EMI remitted must be given value-date posting

corresponding to the salary date. This was meant to prevent excess

interest arising from transit delay in remittance.

(iv) The petitioner was transferred from Pattamundai to Bhubaneswar

in October 1993 and continued to serve at various locations until

his dismissal on 14.05.2008. He claims that although EMIs of

₹6,203 were deducted regularly from his salary, the Pattamundai

Branch failed to provide value-date credit, causing excess interest

to be charged.

(v) From 2010 to 2018, the petitioner made several written and verbal

representations to the bank seeking rectification of the alleged

error.

(vi) Following his dismissal, the petitioner's housing loan accounts

were declared Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) in 2008. Under

pressure of recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, he

allegedly made lump-sum payments in June 2011 to prevent

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

auction of his mortgaged property. The title deeds were, however,

not returned, the bank citing further dues.

(vii) By letter dated 24.06.2011, the Chief Manager, SBI Pattamundai,

asked the petitioner to furnish a chart showing deductions, value

dates, posting dates, and excess interest so the bank could verify

and consider reversal.

(viii) Statements of accounts obtained by the petitioner under the

Right to Information Act revealed instances of bunched EMI

postings, such as five months' EMIs credited on 14.08.2006, two

months on 28.11.2006, and similar bulk postings continuing

through 2008.

(ix) The petitioner alleges post-closure recovery of additional sums

despite full repayment, asserting that even after his accounts

showed zero balance and discharge certificates were issued on

07.05.2016, he was compelled to pay an extra ₹4,11,677 on

24.10.2016 to obtain return of the title deeds.

(x) He claims that in one loan account (No. 11304490034), ₹62,731 was

recovered after closure; in another (No. 11304490045), ₹1,23,260; in

a third (No. 11304490056), ₹85,088; and in a fourth (No.

11304490067), ₹1,40,675.

(xi) The petitioner lodged a complaint before the Banking

Ombudsman (Complaint No. 1887/2017-18). The complaint was

disposed of on 21.05.2018, stating that the SBI Staff Housing Loan

Scheme did not fall within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, while

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

noting that the branch had taken up the issue with higher

authorities.

(xii) The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.(C) No. 4946 of 2019, which was

disposed of on 28.02.2019 by this Court, directing the bank to

consider his representations and pass an appropriate order within

three months. Pursuant to that order, the Chief Manager issued

the impugned order dated 26.07.2019, refunding ₹1,490 on a

notional calculation assuming a one-month delay in credit.

(xiii) The bank explains that pre-2001 records were maintained

manually and are no longer available due to discontinuation after

computerization.

(xiv) The petitioner maintains that all four accounts showed zero

balance as on 31.01.2015, and that a discharge certificate was

issued on 07.05.2016, but despite this, the bank recovered further

amounts before releasing his property documents.

(xv) The bank's counter-affidavit states that after dismissal, the

petitioner's accounts were legitimately classified as NPA, accrued

interest continued to accumulate "off-ledger," and the sum of

₹4,11,677 reflected lawful interest dues payable at the time of

closure, not excess recovery.

(xvi) SBI further states that the petitioner's representations were

belated, that the cause of action arose nearly 29 years ago, and that

the petitioner's writ is barred by limitation and laches, being a

private contractual dispute between borrower and bank.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(xvii) The bank argues that since the petitioner's grievance arose in the

context of NPA classification and loan recovery under the

SARFAESI Act, the appropriate remedy lay before the Debt

Recovery Tribunal (DRT), not under the writ jurisdiction of the

High Court. The petitioner, on the other hand, asserts that the

bank's failure to follow its own value-dating policy and

subsequent coercive recoveries constitute arbitrary administrative

action violating fairness and accountability.

(xviii) The matter thus concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to

refund of the alleged ₹4,11,677 excess amount, beyond the ₹1,490

refunded by SBI, and whether such a claim can be entertained

under Article 226 despite the objections of limitation, alternative

remedy, and the bank's assertion that the amount represented

legitimate NPA interest.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) SBI violated its own extant staff instructions mandating value-date

posting of EMIs deducted on salary day for housing loans retained

at the original branch, thereby charging excess interest for transit

delays while the money remained with the bank.

(ii) The Chief Manager's 2011 letter shifting the burden to the

borrower to produce internal bank-system particulars was evasive

and improper because the bank alone maintained salary-

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

deduction dates, transit timelines, and loan ledgers, and could

compute excess interest without petitioner-side data.

(iii) Systematic bunching of EMI credits over multiple months despite

monthly salary deductions demonstrates non-adherence to value-

dating, leading to a cumulative and quantifiable interest burden

which the bank must restitute rather than offer a token refund.

(iv) The 26.07.2019 refund of ₹1,490 is arbitrary and illusory, being

based on a notional one-month delay and incomplete records,

while ignoring pre-2001 periods and RTI statements evidencing

multi-month bunching; non-availability of manual ledgers cannot

defeat a borrower's substantive right to restitution.

(v) SBI's stance that the claim is stale or time-barred is untenable

because (i) the cause continued through ongoing mis-posting and

coercive recoveries up to 24.10.2016; (ii) the Ombudsman

proceeding and this Court's 28.02.2019 order kept the grievance

alive; and (iii) the 2019 decision itself triggered the present

challenge.

(vi) Once arrears were paid and accounts upgraded from NPA to

standard, and zero balance was recorded as on 31.01.2015 with

discharge certificates dated 07.05.2016, SBI could not lawfully

demand further sums on 24.10.2016 or withhold title deeds; any

recalculation error was the bank's, not the borrower's.

(vii) The bank's reliance on "data not available" and manual-ledger

loss is a self-serving plea: salary dates are uniform and notified

annually; EMI amounts are equal by design; and CBS migration

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

should have captured legacy balances, hence computation of

excess interest is feasible and obligatory.

(viii) Charging compound interest and treating accounts as NPA

despite regularisation and later zeroing of balances contradicts

RBI norms and SBI policy for staff housing loans, where simple

interest and separate interest accounts are prescribed; any NPA

classification post-regularisation is a bank lapse.

(ix) The bank's refusal to return the original title deeds until payment

of additional amounts to undue pressure and constructive

coercion, vitiating the voluntariness of payments made on

24.10.2016 and entitling the petitioner to refund with

compensatory interest.

(x) SBI's invocation of the petitioner's past service or

disciplinary/criminal history is irrelevant and prejudicial; the CBI

case culminated in acquittal and has no nexus with the

contractual/statutory obligations governing EMI crediting and

interest computation on staff housing loans.

(xi) The partial compliance with this Court's 28.02.2019 direction,

ending in an ill-founded ₹1,490 refund, reflects non-application of

mind and disregard of the petitioner's detailed annexures and RTI

statements, warranting judicial intervention for full restitution.

(xii) Given the prolonged harassment, delay, and coercive recovery

culminating in the 24.10.2016 payment to secure documents, the

petitioner claims not only refund of ₹4,11,677 with 12% interest

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

from 24.10.2016 but also ₹2,00,000 towards mental agony and

litigation costs to deter similar future misconduct.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the

following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The bank presses preliminary objections, claim allegedly raised

"after 29 years," writ barred by limitation/laches, and the dispute

is a private, commercial, contract matter requiring

oral/documentary evidence, thus unsuited to Article 226/227;

compensation for "mental agony" is impermissible in writ when

statutory alternative remedies exist.

(ii) Issues tied to NPA/SARFAESI and bank dues must go to the Debts

Recovery Tribunal; reliance placed on Satyawati Tandon and

Surjeet Singh Sahni line of cases (also citing PHR Invent

Educational Society v UCO Bank, 2024 INSC 297) to argue High

Courts should not entertain writs where efficacious statutory

forums exist and "representation-disposal" orders cannot revive

dead claims.

(iii) Mere serial representations from 23.11.2010 to 23.02.2018 do not

extend limitation; the petitioner first objected only in 2010, years

after alleged cause (1990s/early 2000s) and after dismissal/NPA, so

the entire claim is time-barred and an abuse of process to

manufacture fresh cause of action from the 2019 order.

(iv) ₹1,490 already refunded covers delay-credit loss per available

records; the ₹4,11,677 was accrued NPA interest not visible in the

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

"main ledger" but validly added to closure balances, hence no

unlawful enrichment or wrongful withholding of title deeds;

assertions of value-date violations, systemic bunching, or mis-

posting are denied.

(v) Burden of proof & records: OP-3 contends it was not the salary-

paying branch; precise salary-deduction dates/amounts lay with

the employer side/payslips and should have been furnished by the

petitioner; challenges are raised to authenticity/service of several

annexed letters; bank bookkeeping shifts (manual to CBS) and

discontinued ledgers explain data gaps without implying liability.

(vi) Conduct of petitioner: the bank characterizes the writ as an

afterthought following dismissal, NPA classification, SARFAESI

action, and refusal of waiver; it says the petitioner never

contemporaneously protested during service when the accounts

were standard, and now advances a concocted "excess" figure to

reopen closed NPA accounts contrary to banking norms.

IV. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS:

5. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents

placed before this Court.

6. At the outset, it is evident that the grievance of the petitioner concerns

a contractual dispute over bank loan accounts and interest

computation. It is also pertinent to note that there is no violation of

fundamental law.

7. Given the nature of the dispute, it is imperative for this Court to

outline the fact that High Courts must be cautious in entertaining writ

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

petitions in commercial or contractual matters where alternate

remedies exist. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab

National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and Ors.1highlighted the same and

held as follows:

"...Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless, when there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act."

8. Here, petitioner's remedy lay under the SARFAESI/RDDB Act before

the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), not by way of writ. The statutory

scheme envisages a complete recovery process, with remedy under

Section 17 and appeal under Section 18, for bank dues.

9. A plethora of judicial pronouncements have deprecated the tendency

of High Courts to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 despite the

availability of efficacious statutory remedies under the DRT Act and

the SARFAESI Act, observing that such practice causes serious

prejudice to the banking institution. In fact, the Supreme Court, in the

case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon2 has held the

following:

"55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under

(2001) 6 SCC 569

2010 (8) SCC 110.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection."

10. Applying the abovementioned judicial precedents to the case in hand,

it is apparent that the claim of the petitioner for refund of alleged

excess interest is, in substance, a claim of adjustment of contractual

dues and performance under the loan agreements, which should have

been pursued in the prescribed forum, not by extraordinary writ.

11. Moreover, the claim is barred by inordinate delay and laches. A

belated monetary claim in contract or service matters is generally

rejected unless a continuing wrong is shown. A right not exercised for

a long time is non-existent and delay and laches are applied to non-suit

litigants who approach courts belatedly without justification. In fact

the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. MJ James3held

as follows:

"Inactive acquiescence on the part of the respondent can be inferred till the filing of the appeal, and not for the period post filing of the appeal. Nevertheless, this acquiescence being in the nature of estoppel bars the respondent from claiming violation of the right of fair representation."

12. The bank's case is that the alleged "cause of action" accrued decades

ago (from the 1990s onward) when EMI deductions were not value-

dated. Petitioner did not contemporaneously protest those entries,

instead raising the issue many years later only after his dismissal and

loan classification as NPA. No plausible explanation is offered for this

2021 SCC OnLine SC 1061.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

delay. Even treating the grievance as a continuing wrong up to 2016,

the law limits relief for such arrears to a reasonable period prior to

filing. In any event, petitioner's own writ filed in 2019 was directed

only to consider his representations. Successive attempts to re-litigate

the same grievances in writ form are impermissible. The petitioner