[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
M/S Shreen Industries vs Ministry Of Micro on 20 April, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.11408 of 2026
M/S Shreen Industries, .... Petitioner
Balasore
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. R.P. Kar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A.N. Ray, Adv.
-versus-
Ministry of Micro, Small and .... Opposite Parties
Medium Enterprises, New Represented by Adv.-
Delhi and others Mr. Abhishek Mohanty, CGC
Mr. S.P. Mishra, Adv. for Bank
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
20.04.2026
Order No.
01. The essential grievance of the Petitioner, a Registered Micro,
Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) is as to the coercive
proceeding of loan recovery. Grievance is against the Opposite
Party - Bank. At the stage of preliminary hearing in WP(C)
No.8924 of 2026 filed by the self-same Petitioner, we had granted
reprieve vide our order dated 24.03.2026 which has following text:-
"Heard Mr. Kar, learned Sr. Advocate
appearing for the Petitioner-Micro, Small &
Medium Enterprises. Petitioner has made a
challenge to the coercive recovery proceedings
constituted under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. A case
has been made out for issuance of emergent notice
and grant of reprieve, on bona fide being exhibited
by the petitioner by offering to credit 30% of the
amount in demand, i.e, Rs.1,02,27,903.70 on or
before 30.03.2026 forenoon. Denying reprieve at
this stage may cause enormous hardship to the
Petitioner which is as already mentioned, an MSME
entity which enjoins certain protection and privilege
statutorily accorded under the MSME Act as has
been voiced by a few High Courts in the Country. No
prejudice would be caused to the lender, inasmuch
as even if the scheduled auction is deferred, the
interest on the amount outstanding shall accrue due
and go on accruing due.
Issue emergent notice to the Opposite Parties by
speed post with AD. Returnable within two weeks,
requisites for which to be filed within three working
days.
In the above circumstances, application in I.A.
No.5421 of 2026 having been favoured, the auction
scheduled to be held on 30.03.2026 stands deferred
sine die subject to Petitioner crediting 30% of the
outstanding amount, as specified above.
I.A. is disposed off with a warning to the
Petitioner that in the event this facility is not availed
by complying the condition, not only the interim
order stands rescinded but the petition itself runs the
risk of dismissal on that ground per se."
2. It is submitted at the Bar that in terms of the condition subject
to which the reprieve was accorded, the Petitioner-borrower has
already remitted a sum of Rs.30,68,372/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh
Sixty-eight Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-two) only within the
time stipulated. Thus, prima facie some bona fide is being shown.
3. After service of notice the Opposite Party-Bank has entered
appearance through its panel counsel, who opposed the writ petition
inter alia contending that the fresh notice now issued is not in
respect of this loan there being another.
4. Mr. Kar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner
disputes this version and says that the notice covers the very same
loan in respect of which the Petition has been filed. We need not
undertake a deeper examination of this matter, inasmuch as both the
sides graciously agree that in terms of the relief granted in WP(C)
No.9102 of 2025 between the Petitioner and the Bank, this Petition
also can be disposed off keeping open all contentions of the parties
including the one that the Petitioner wants to take shelter under the
shadow of the Credit Guarantee Fund Trust For Micro & Small
Enterprises (CGTMSE) Scheme.
5. It is relevant to reproduce the kind of relief that has been
accorded in the cognate petition which was disposed off by a Co-
ordinate Bench vide order dated 16.05.2025, wherein paragraph 5
reads as under:
"5. At this stage, regard being had to narrow
compass of the case and apparent absence of
intricacies involved therein, we suggested and both
the sides graciously agreed that the Petitioner-
Borrower who claims to be an MSME can make an
appropriate representation coupled vouching
material in terms of the extant RBI Guidelines, as
interpreted by the Apex Court in Pro Knits, supra
within two weeks and the answer opposite parties
should consider the same and further informed to
the Petitioner result of such consideration within an
outer limit of eight weeks, and that till all this
accomplished, the impugned Dercive proceedings of
loan recovery shall be kept at a bay. We make it
clear that what should happen to the impugned
proceedings of recovery shall depend upon the
outcome of the consideration of the contemplated
representation. Both the sides agree that all
contentions should be kept open and accordingly
they are."
6. In the above circumstances, this Petition is disposed off
granting substantially similar relief as has been indicated above
keeping open all contentions of the parties. It hardly needs to be
stated that till the parley takes place between the Petitioner and the
banker, all the coercive proceedings are kept under suspended
animation. In the event the parley goes adverse to the interest of the
Petitioner, that would be a case of fresh cause of action.
Costs made easy.
Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO
