SALONY SAMANTSINGHAR vs INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, WEST SAHIDNAGAR, BHUBANESWAR — WP(C)/10614/2026

Case under Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: ODHC010248962026

Filing Number

WP(C)/14785/2026

Filing Date

06-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/10614/2026

Registration Date

08-Apr-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

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India, 1950 Section 226,227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SALONY SAMANTSINGHAR

    Adv. PRASANTA KUMAR NANDA,D.SAHOO, M.SETHY,D.SAHOO, M.SETHY, D.SAHOO, M.SETHY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, WEST SAHIDNAGAR, BHUBANESWAR

  2. 2.AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, SAMD DEPT., BHUBANESWAR

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Dixit K.s.,mr. Justice Chittaranjan DashView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Orissa dismissed the petitioner's grievance regarding non-possession of auctioned property under SARFAESI Act proceedings. The court directed the petitioner to add the jurisdictional Tahsildar as Opposite Party No.3, finding that involving state revenue authorities would facilitate complete adjudication of the case. Notice was issued to the newly added party, with the AGA accepting service. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Mr. Justice Dixit K.S. , Mr. Justice Chittaranjan Dash

  4. 06-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/10614/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Orissa dismissed the petitioner's grievance regarding non-possession of auctioned property under SARFAESI Act proceedings. The court directed the petitioner to add the jurisdictional Tahsildar as Opposite Party No.3, finding that involving state revenue authorities would facilitate complete adjudication of the case. Notice was issued to the newly added party, with the AGA accepting service. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case