IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK , W.P.(C) No.5003 of 2025 Union Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch, BBSR …. Petitioner Mr. S.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Panda, Advocate -versus- Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Ganjam & Others …. Opp. Parties Mrs. S. Pattanayak, AGA Mr. N.K. Dash, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 22.05.2026 10. Petitioner-Bank is knocking at the doors of this Writ Court for assailing the order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganjam, Berhampur in Misc. Case No.259 of 2024, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-1, whereby the claim of the Bank made under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 had been negatived on the ground of there being a Re-conveyance Deed dated 20.12.2023, wherein a recital wrongly states that the O.P.-Borrower has remitted to the Bank a sum of ₹15,80,45,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Crore Eighty Lakhs & Forty-Five Thousand only), being the entire outstanding loan amount. p. 2 2. After service of notice, Opp. Party-Borrower entered appearance through his counsel and has filed the Counter dated 07.04.2025 supported by an affidavit, wherein at Paragraph-11, he falsely states as having repaid the outstanding loan amount of ₹15,80,45,000/- as on 20.12.2023 when no amount was paid. Having noticed the same, we vide order dated 21.05.2026, had said as under: - “OP No.3 shall be personally present before the Court to offer explanation as to why he took up the contention that entire amount in a sum of Rs.15,80,45,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Crore Eighty Lakh Forty-Five Thousand) only would be deposited by him. We wanted to issue advance order in this connection to the Superintendent of Police, Berhampur. However, we decline it to do on the undertaking of learned counsel appearing for the OP No.3 that his client shall be personally present before this Court in the morning at 10:30 AM.” 3. Under the threat of this order, O.P. No.3-Swatantra Sahu has personally appeared before the Court and has filed an affidavit dated 22.05.2026, which reads as under: “1. That, I am the opposite party No.3 in this case and being directed, is present before the Hon’ble Court. 2. That, I do hereby withdraw and/recall all my pleadings and submissions vis-à-vis claim of payment of Rs.15,80,45,00/- (Rupees Fifteen Crore Eighty Lakhs Forty- Five Thousand only) as per the Re-conveyance deed. 3. That, acknowledging the dues of the bank, I am willing to settle the loan account as such I have submitted my OTS offer before the Bank. 4. That, I tender my unconditional apology for the submissions for and claim of the aforesaid amount. 5. That, the facts stated above are true to my knowledge and belief.” p. 3 This affidavit is to the effect that the recital in Re- conveyance Deed and the contention in the Counter as to O.P. No.3 having paid ₹15,80,45,000/- to the Bank are not true. The rough affidavit also offers an unconditional apology for taking a false stand as to the payment of such amount. 4. We wanted to imprison O.P. No. 3 since we are of the considered opinion that the right place for such people is jail and not a niche in the civil society. However, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Bank, in his usual way stood tall at the Bar and said that no stringent step need be taken. We respectfully agree with his submission. However, Mr. Mishra adds that the impugned Section 14- order being founded on a wrong premise of O.P. No.3 having repaid a sum of ₹15,80,45,000/- should be set at naught, and an appropriate order which the author, i.e, C.J.M. could have made had there been no such plea, contention or recital as to the payment of the amount be passed. He also seeks rescinding of Re-conveyance Deed for want to consideration, as admitted by OP No.3. We agree with this submission, inasmuch as the powers of Writ Court are coextensive with the requirement of justice and that Court can make any order which the statutory authority whose proceedings are being judicially reviewed, ought to have made, subject to all just exceptions. Page 4 of 6 5. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for OP No.3 on instructions submits that mercy be shown to his client, who has confessed the guilt and offered an unconditional apology, of course subject to reasonable condition. When asked, O.P. No.3, personally standing in an apologetic way, submits that he would voluntarily and peaceably deliver the possession of Security Property to the Bank right now without creating any issue. He has also filed a Memo dated 22.05.2026, which reads as under: “…The Opp. Party No.3 ready to handover possession of mortgage property to the Bank today...” In fact, one of us namely Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chittaranjan Dash, spoke to O.P. No.3 in Odia and he specifically stated that he has not paid the alleged amount of ₹15,80,45,000/- as stated in the recital of the Re-conveyance Deed, in his Counter to the Writ Petition and in his objections to section 14 Application of the Bank. Entire proceeding is available in the Online Display of the Court. In the above circumstances, this Petition is disposed off with the following directions: (i) A Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order; a Writ of Mandamus issues to O.P. No.3 in terms of his own undertaking to deliver back peaceably the possession of Security Property as is specified in the Schedule to Section 14 Application of p. 5 the Bank, on or before the Sunset of 23.05.2026, peaceably and without creating any ruckus. (ii) O.P. No.3 shall pay to Odisha State Legal Services Authority Fund, Cuttack a sum of ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only by way of penalty within an outer limit of two weeks. (iii) The Superintendent of Police, Ganjam at Berhampur is directed to implement this order both in terms of OP No.3 handing over possession of Security Property to the Bank and ensuring payment of penalty amount of ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) only by taking all appropriate action including arrest & detention of O.P. No.3, if need be and that no Court below in the hierarchy shall grant bail, if such arrested & detention is made. (iv) In view of specific admission of OP No.3 that the recital as to repayment of Rs.15,80,45,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Crore Eighty Lakh Forty-Five Thousand) only being false, the Re-conveyance Deed dated 20.12.2023 is declared null & void on the ground of nullum pactum and that on the production of a copy of this order, the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar shall make an endorsement in the concerned Registers/Books to that effect within two weeks and submit a compliance report to the Registrar General of p. 6 the Court, failing which punitive action may be taken against him. (v) It is open to O.P. No.3 to make a fresh OTS offer by making payment of requisite amount while computing which the amount already paid by him be taken into account. However, such liberty avails to him only on the payment of penalty amount as mentioned above. The Petitioner-Bank shall take a fresh call on the OTS offer in accordance with the extant RBI Guidelines and inform result of such consideration to OP No.3 within an outer limit of two weeks, and till that happens, the Security Property shall not be auctioned. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna S. Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AK Pradhan/Priyanka Designation: Senior Stenographer