SUNAFULA MAHANTA vs STATE OF ODISHA — WP(C)/4679/2026
Case under Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 24th March 2026.
CNR: ODHC010094162026
Filing Number
WP(C)/5317/2026
Filing Date
05-Feb-2026
Registration No
WP(C)/4679/2026
Registration Date
10-Feb-2026
Judge
Mr. Justice Dixit K.S. , Mr. Justice Chittaranjan Dash
Coram
Mr. Justice Dixit K.S. , Mr. Justice Chittaranjan Dash
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
MERCANTILE LAWS, COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS INCLUDING BANKING ( 26 )
Sub-Category
RECOVERY OF DEBTS DUE TO BANKSAND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT, 1993. ( 9 )
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 09-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SUNAFULA MAHANTA
Adv. MUKUNDA CHANDRA MISHRA,B.P.RATH, A.K.RAY, M.MISHRA,B.P.RATH, A.K.RAY, M.MISHRA, B.P.RATH, A.K.RAY, M.MISHRA
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF ODISHA
-
2.STATE OF ODISHA
-
3.TAHASILDAR, KEONJHAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
Mr. Justice Dixit K.s.,mr. Justice Chittaranjan DashView PDF
The High Court of Orissa dismissed the writ petition filed by Sunafula Mahanta challenging Bank of India's SARFAESI action, holding that a buyer of mortgaged property acquires only equity of redemption and that the writ court cannot examine disputed factual issues regarding the mortgage. The court directed the petitioner to pursue his remedies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal where a related case is already pending. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Feb-2026
Mr. Justice Dixit K.s.,mr. Justice Chittaranjan DashView PDF
-
12-Feb-2026
Fresh Admission
Mr. Justice Dixit K.S. , Mr. Justice Chittaranjan Dash
-
05-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP(C)/4679/2026
The High Court of Orissa dismissed the writ petition filed by Sunafula Mahanta challenging Bank of India's SARFAESI action, holding that a buyer of mortgaged property acquires only equity of redemption and that the writ court cannot examine disputed factual issues regarding the mortgage. The court directed the petitioner to pursue his remedies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal where a related case is already pending. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts