Orissa High Court
M/S. Orissa Homes Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Odisha on 10 September, 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: 16-Sep-2025 16:57:43
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No. 10 of 2023
(An application Under Section 13 of the Odisha Protection of Interest
of Depositors Act, 2012)
M/s. Orissa Homes Pvt. Ltd., .... Appellant (s)
Bhubaneswar & Ors.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Avijit Pattnaik, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-04.08.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.09.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Appellant, in the present appeal, challenges the order dated
04.02.2022 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court,
Cuttack, in I.A. No.03 of 2019, on the grounds that the impugned order
suffers from gross procedural irregularities and was rendered in
violation of settled principles of natural justice.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(i) The Appellant companies, M/s Odisha Homes Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Trisat
Estates & Construction Pvt. Ltd., are engaged in the real estate business,
including providing plots and flats to customers. Both companies are
represented by their respective Managing Directors and operate within
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
(ii) On 30.01.2018, one Shri Ashish Pattanaik lodged a written report before
the Superintendent of Police, EOW, Bhubaneswar Police Station. It was
alleged that M/s Odisha Homes Pvt. Ltd. was offering flats under a
housing project titled "Anand Homes" at Mouza Kuha, Jatni Tahasil,
District Khordha. The informant, attracted to the project, expressed his
intention to purchase a 2BHK flat. On 27.04.2011, he deposited a
booking amount of Rs. 20,000/-, and an agreement was executed
between him and one of the company's Directors. Subsequent payments
of Rs. 5,30,000/- were made on various dates.
(iii) According to the informant, under the agreement, the flat was to be
handed over within two years. However, the construction was not
completed within the stipulated time, and by 2014, the company's office
at Nayapalli was closed. Based on this report, EOW Bhubaneswar P.S.
Case No. 02 of 2018 was registered on 30.01.2018 under Sections
420/467/468/471/120B IPC, along with Section 6 of the Odisha Protection
of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (OPID
Act), and investigation commenced.
(iv) The Managing Director of M/s Odisha Homes Pvt. Ltd., Appellant No.
3, was arrested on 31.01.2018 and remanded to custody. A bail
application was filed before the Designated Court under the OPID Act,
Cuttack, which was rejected. Subsequently, in BLAPL No. 2666 of 2018,
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
this Court granted interim bail to Appellant No. 3 for 126 days. The
Appellants surrendered before the Designated Court within the
stipulated period.
(v) During the investigation, statements of witnesses and several investors
were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Upon completion of the
investigation, charge-sheet No. 63, dated 31.12.2018, was submitted
against the Appellants and others for the alleged offences.
(vi) During the proceedings, certain properties of the companies were
seized. The State of Odisha, represented through the Additional District
Magistrate-cum-Competent Authority, Cuttack, filed I.A. No. 03 of 2019
under Section 4(3) of the OPID Act, seeking an ad interim order of
attachment. By order dated 04.02.2022, the learned Designated Court,
Cuttack, directed the sale of immovable properties listed in Schedule-A
through public auction, the realization of amounts from frozen
accounts, and the distribution of proceeds among depositors/investors.
(vii) Some of the Directors of the Appellant companies filed CRLA No. 171
of 2022 before this Court, which was disposed of by order dated
28.03.2022. Thereafter, SLP (Crl.) No. 4427 of 2022 was filed before the
Supreme Court and dismissed by order dated 13.05.2022.
(viii) The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants, aggrieved by the
order dated 04.02.2022 passed in I.A. No. 03 of 2019 by the learned
Presiding Officer, Designated Court, Cuttack, under the OPID Act.
(ix) In I.A. No. 382 of 2025, the Appellants seek the release of 10 out of 31
attached properties, proposing to sell them in a phased manner and
utilize the proceeds towards the payment of dues to home buyers. The
total value of the attached properties exceeds the outstanding liability,
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
and the Appellants seek the release of properties commensurate with
the pending dues.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:
3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Appellants submitted that the impugned order dated 04.02.2022,
passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the
OPID Act, Cuttack, suffers from gross illegality, arbitrariness, and non-
application of judicial mind, having been passed without due
consideration of the materials available on record.
(ii) The Appellants contended that the order was passed mechanically and
without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Appellant No.
3, who was in custody and representing the companies, was not
produced before the learned Designated Court during the interim
application, thereby vitiating the proceedings.
(iii) The Appellants asserted that the ex parte nature of the order violated
the principle of audi alteram partem, effectively debarred them from
participating in the proceeding, and rendered the order unsustainable
in law.
(iv) The Appellants submitted that the learned Designated Court failed to
consider the investments already made by Appellant No. 3 in
construction and the value of the land, and instead proceeded on the
premise that the attached properties would realize less than the alleged
collections, an assertion the Appellants claim is a perverse finding.
(v) The Appellants contended that several customers had also filed
complaints before the Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
including Execution Case No. 20 of 2021, which were not brought to the
attention of the Designated Court by the prosecution. This, the
Appellants argued, constitutes multiplicity of proceedings on the same
cause of action.
(vi) The Appellants asserted that the valuation of the attached properties
was made at a figure much lower than the actual government valuation,
allegedly with mala fide intent, and that the Designated Court failed to
examine this aspect.
(vii) The Appellants submitted that once an attachment order under the
OPID Act has been made absolute, there is no further scope for
investigation at that stage. A plain reading of Section 11 of the OPID
Act, read with Section 9(6), shows that investigation is only relevant
during the ad-interim stage. Once the order is made absolute, the only
remedy available is appeal before this Court, not modification by the
Designated Court.
(viii) The Appellants contended that the attachment of 31 properties in this
case has already been made absolute, and such an order could not be
modified thereafter by the Designated Court.
(ix) The Appellants asserted that the scope of investigation before the
Designated Court is confined to the criminal trial, whereas the
attachment proceeding under the OPID Act is civil in nature.
(x) The Appellants contended that, according to the charge-sheet, the
alleged liability against them is quantified at Rs. 7,54,39,568/-. Of this,
Rs. 1,15,22,934/- has already been refunded to buyers, leaving a balance
of Rs. 6,36,82,266/-. Given the magnitude of the liability, discharging it
in one lump sum is not feasible.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(xi) The Appellants submitted that the total value of the attached properties
is approximately Rs. 40,00,00,000/-, which is far in excess of the balance
liability. They have therefore sought a phased release of the attached
assets so that the proceeds from the sale can be utilized to clear the dues
of home buyers in a systematic and equitable manner.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The OPID Act is a self-contained code that provides a complete
mechanism for remedies of the nature now sought. Any relief must,
therefore, be pursued strictly in accordance with the procedure
prescribed under the Act.
(ii) By filing the present interlocutory application, the Appellant is
effectively seeking to vacate the ad-interim order of attachment
concerning certain properties without following the due process under
the OPID Act. Such a course is impermissible.
(iii) Section 11 of the OPID Act specifically requires that an application for
the release of attached property be made before the Designated Court
upon furnishing sufficient and satisfactory security commensurate with
the value of the property. In the present case, the Appellant has directly
approached this Court for release without availing this statutory
remedy, which is not maintainable.
(iv) It is a settled principle of law that where a statute prescribes a particular
manner of doing a thing, it must be done in that manner only and not
through any other means. The Appellant's attempt to bypass the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
procedure under Section 11 of the OPID Act would render the statutory
scheme nugatory.
(v) The Appellant has the option of invoking Section 11 at any stage before
the Designated Court to ventilate his grievances and obtain appropriate
relief.
(vi) Section 11 has been enacted to safeguard the interests of depositors and
ensure that banks or financial institutions acting bona fide are not
prejudiced by arbitrary attachment, provided they are willing to furnish
adequate security. The present application, which seeks to bypass these
statutory safeguards, is therefore liable to be rejected.
IV. FINDINGS OF PRESIDING OFFICER, DESIGNATED COURT UNDER THE OPID
ACT, CUTTACK:
5. The Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack,
heard the applicant, noted the ex parte status of the Opposite Parties
after personal service and newspaper publication, and, upon reviewing
the pleadings, the testimony of P.W.1 (the Additional District
Magistrate, Cuttack, notified as Competent Authority by Finance
Department Notification No. 31732/F dated 10.10.2013) and P.W.2 (the
Investigating Officer, EOW), as well as Exhibits 1-57, recorded that the
Government had already passed an ad-interim order of attachment
under Section 3 vide Order No. 39167/F dated 15.12.2018, transferring
control of specified movable and immovable properties to the
Competent Authority. It was noted that the ensuing application under
Section 4(3) was filed in a timely manner, seeking confirmation of that
attachment and directions for the sale of the properties by public
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
auction, along with the realization of amounts from frozen bank
accounts.
6. The Court, based on incorporation records, advertising materials,
depositor statements, and transaction trails proved through the
exhibits, treated M/s Odisha Homes Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Trisat Estates &
Construction Pvt. Ltd. (and related entities) as "Financial
Establishments" within the meaning of Section 2(d). It accepted that,
through brochures, leaflets, and newspaper advertisements for the
"Ananda Homes" and "Royal Homes" projects, deposits and
installments were collected from the public with promises of
2BHK/3BHK flats in Kuha, Jatni. The investigation was deemed to have
established collections of ₹7,54,39,568 from 153 intending buyers, non-
delivery of flats within the promised two-year period, closure of the
company's office by May 2014, and no refunds.
7. On the evidentiary record, the Court noted the seizure and freezing of
assets, the tracing of property acquisitions and banking transactions to
depositor funds, and the pattern of acquisitions in the names of the
Managing Director, Directors, and associates, including transfers to
related companies (notably amounts credited to Trisat Estates &
Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Bharati Infra). Despite service and
publication, no show-cause or third-party objections were filed under
Section 9(3), permitting the statutory progression to confirmation under
Section 9(4).
8. The Court also observed that the attached immovable assets, valued at
approximately ₹1,05,92,291, together with frozen bank balances of
about ₹8,87,434 (aggregating to ~₹1,14,79,725), were substantially lower
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
than the total sums collected from depositors. It invoked the proviso to
Section 9(6), emphasizing that release from attachment could not be
considered unless sufficient value to secure repayment remained under
attachment.
9. Treating the attachment process as civil in character and aimed at
protecting depositors while the criminal investigation continued, the
Court made absolute the Government's ad-interim attachment dated
15.12.2018. It directed the sale of the Schedule-A immovable properties
by public auction, authorized realization from the frozen accounts, and
ordered equitable distribution of the proceeds among depositors. The
interlocutory application was allowed ex parte, without costs.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
11. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, it is
apposite to first note the statutory scheme under the Odisha Protection
of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011.
12. Under Section 3, the State Government may, if satisfied that any
property has been acquired through depositor funds, pass an ad-
interim order of attachment of such property.
13. Section 4(3) requires the Competent Authority to approach the
Designated Court within the prescribed time for the confirmation of the
ad-interim attachment and for appropriate directions, which may
include the sale of the attached properties by public auction and the
realization of amounts from frozen accounts.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
14. Section 9 outlines the procedure before the Designated Court, which
includes notice to affected persons and providing liberty for any person
claiming an interest to object before orders are passed. Where no
objections are raised, the Designated Court is mandated to make the ad-
interim order absolute and direct the sale. The proviso to Section 9(6)
restricts the release from attachment unless the Court is satisfied that
the value of the remaining property under attachment is sufficient to
ensure repayment to depositors.
15. Section 11 establishes the specific statutory route for the release of
attached property, requiring the applicant to furnish security to the
satisfaction of the Designated Court. The Act is self-contained,
depositor-protective, and prescribes both the process for confirming the
attachment and the exclusive mechanism for any release thereafter.
16. Applying the above to the present case, the record discloses that the
Government passed an ad-interim attachment on 15.12.2018, the
Competent Authority filed the interlocutory application within time,
notices were served and, where necessary, published, the Opposite
Parties did not file show-cause or objections, and evidence was led
through the Competent Authority and the Investigating Officer with
extensive documentary support.
17. Based on this material, the Designated Court recorded findings
regarding the receipt of deposits from a large number of investors, non-
delivery of promised flats, non-refunds, and the tracing of acquisitions
and bank movements to depositor funds. In view of the non-appearance
of the Opposite Parties despite service and publication, the statutory
consequence under Section 9 followed.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
18. The Designated Court also referred to the proviso to Section 9(6),
emphasizing that release from attachment cannot be considered unless
the remaining property value is sufficient to secure repayment to
depositors. The pleas now urged regarding lack of opportunity,
undervaluation, and pendency before the Real Estate Regulatory
Authority do not present any jurisdictional issues that would affect the
Designated Court's exercise of authority. Notice had been issued and
published, no objection under Section 9(3) was filed, and no contrary
valuation or ownership material was placed before the Designated
Court.
19. The Act itself provides a specific remedy under Section 11 for seeking
the release of attached property upon furnishing adequate security
before the Designated Court. An attempt to bypass that statutory route
through an appeal cannot be accepted within the framework of the Act.
On this record, there is nothing perverse in the factual conclusions
drawn by the Presiding Officer or in the application of the statutory
provisions that would warrant appellate interference.
20. Regarding the ex parte nature of the order, this Court is not persuaded
that any unfairness has been caused. The record reflects that notices
were duly served upon the companies and their Directors, including
service upon Appellant No. 3 while in judicial custody. Where personal
service could not be effected, publication was made in widely circulated
newspapers. Some of the Opposite Parties entered appearance through
counsel but later failed to pursue the matter; others remained absent. In
such circumstances, Section 9(3) of the OPID Act conferred the right to
file objections, but no objections were filed. Section 9(4) further obligates
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
the Designated Court to proceed and make the ad-interim order
absolute if no cause is shown. The statutory mandate being clear, the
mere fact that the order was ex parte does not automatically imply a
breach of natural justice. The opportunity was available but not availed,
and the process satisfies the requirements of fairness under the law.
21. In the absence of any demonstrable perversity, patent illegality, or
material irregularity, this Court finds no ground to intervene with the
order dated 04.02.2022 of the Presiding Officer, Designated Court under
the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial
Establishments) Act, 2011, in I.A. No. 03 of 2019.
VI. CONCLUSION:
22. In view of the statutory scheme under the OPID Act, the findings
recorded by the Presiding Officer, Designated Court, cannot be said to
suffer from any perversity or illegality.
23. The attachment was made in accordance with Sections 3, 4, and 9,
notices were duly served and published, opportunity was afforded but
not availed, and the ex parte nature of the order does not, in the
circumstances, vitiate the proceedings. The Designated Court was
bound by the legislative mandate to make the attachment absolute and
to protect the interests of depositors. No jurisdictional error or violation
of settled principles of law has been demonstrated to warrant
interference.
24. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
25. Interim order, if any, passed earlier shall stand vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 10th Sept., 2025/
