Anusuya Patro v. Ao, Union Bank Of India, Ganjam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

WP(C) No.21914 of 2022 Anusuya Patro & Anr ......... Petitioners Mr. P.R. Chhatoi, Adv.

-Versus- A.O., Union Bank of India, ....... Opp. Parties Regional Office, Ganjam Mr. Tuna Sahoo, Adv. for the Bank & Anr.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

ORDER

30.08.2022 Order No.

02.

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2.

Mr. Tuna Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the bank Opposite Parties has submitted that the e-Auction has failed for nonparticipation of the intending bidders. According to Mr. Sahoo, the writ petition has thus become entirely infructuous. 3.

But, Mr. P.R. Chhatoi, learned counsel has submitted that in view of the failure of e-auction, the writ petition is partly infrctuous, but the petitioner has made averments in the writ petition for One Time Settlement or settlement.

4.

We find that the said submission has its roots in the pleading. As such, we observe that the petitioner is serious about a settlement. The petitioner shall file a detailed proposal seeking settlement within 15 days from today. Along with the said proposal, 10% of the outstanding amount be deposited in the bank within the said stipulated date as the condition precedent for settlement. After such fresh

proposal for settlement is received, the Bank-Opposite Parties shall take up the matter for reconsideration. A sincere negotiation with the petitioner was find out a flexible arrangement for the repayment. 5.

In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of 6.

No order as to costs.

7.

Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied as per rules. (S. Talapatra) Judge (M.S. Sahoo) Rati Ranjan Judge