" Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21620 of 2024 (In the matter of petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). P. Vivek …. Petitioner(s) -versus- C.M.D & CEO Indian Bank, Chennai & Ors. …. Opposite Party(s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Rajakishore Sahoo, Adv. -versus- For Opp. Party(s) : Mr. S.K. Dey, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATES OF HEARING:- 08.12.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:- 09.01.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, seeks issuance of appropriate directions to the opposite parties for refund of an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs allegedly debited from its cash credit account maintained with Indian Bank, along with interest. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case as narrated by the petitioner are as follows: Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 2 (i) The petitioner had availed a Cash Credit (OCC) limit of Rs. 89 lakhs and a term loan of Rs. 60.00 lakhs from Indian Bank, Main Branch, 32, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar, on security of land and building valued at Rs. 94.84 lakhs and a residential plot valued at Rs. 150.00 lakhs, pursuant to a sanction letter dated 09.04.2009. The said account was reviewed annually. (ii) The term loan was subsequently closed upon repayment of the entire amount. The cash credit limit was reduced from Rs. 89 lakhs to Rs. 50 lakhs in December, 2010 and was further reduced to Rs. 30 lakhs as on 31.03.2012. (iii) On 18.06.2012, the petitioner approached the then Assistant General Manager of Indian Bank, Main Branch, Bhubaneswar, seeking reduction of the overdraft limit from Rs. 30 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs. It is stated that the said officer advised against such reduction and proposed that an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs be debited from the cash credit account and kept in a parking account, with an assurance that the amount would be restored to the company’s account in future without charging interest. The petitioner agreed to the said arrangement, and accordingly, an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was transferred from the cash credit account of M/s. Optimal Products Private Limited to the bank’s parking account. (iv) On the same date, the said amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was transferred from the parking account to three different accounts as follows: Rs. 6.00 lakhs to the overdraft account of M/s. Orissa State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd, Rs. 4.25 lakhs to the cash credit account of Shri Satish Unnikrishnan Menon of Premier Air Conditioning, Pune, and Rs. 9.75 Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 3 lakhs to an account maintained by the said officer with Indian Bank, Mumbai Fort Branch. (v) On 19.06.2012, an amount of Rs. 9.74 lakhs was transferred from the said account to another savings bank account maintained with Indian Bank, Kirkee Branch. Thereafter, on 21.06.2012, an amount of Rs. 10.00 lakhs was transferred to the savings bank account of Ms. Asma Jatat Shaikh maintained with Bank of Maharashtra, Vishrantwadi Branch, Pune, as reflected in the charge-sheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation. (vi) In August, 2012, upon scrutiny of the bank statement, it was found that the cash credit limit had not been reduced and that interest had been charged on an amount of Rs.20 lakhs. Upon enquiry, the then Branch Manager stated that the same was due to a technical issue in the system. (vii) Subsequently, the cash credit account was credited with amounts of Rs. 56,000/- on 31.08.2012 and Rs. 95,000/- on 07.03.2013 towards interest charged earlier. The said amounts were debited from the account of Shri D.D. Champatiray and were refunded pursuant to an order dated 03.11.2023 passed by this Court. (viii) Thereafter, the petitioner requested that the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs be transferred back from the parking account to the cash credit account, whereupon it was found that the cash credit limit had been increased to Rs. 50.00 lakhs. Upon enquiry, the Branch Manager again stated that the same was due to a technical issue in the system. (ix) It is stated that the then Zonal Manager and Deputy General Manager of the Bank lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhubaneswar, stating that an amount of Rs. 20 Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 4 lakhs had been debited from the overdraft account of M/s. Optimal Products Private Limited and credited to the bank’s parking account. (x) The Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhubaneswar, after enquiry and investigation, submitted a charge-sheet on 18.04.2013, wherein it was indicated that amounts had been debited from four accounts, namely the MARKFED account for Rs. 43.00 lakhs, M/s. Optimal Products Private Limited for Rs. 20 lakhs, the account of Shri Dhanurdhar Champatiray for Rs. 15.99 lakhs, and M/s. S.B. Sahoo and Co. for Rs. 7.00 lakhs. (xi) The Bank refunded an amount of Rs. 43.00 lakhs to the MARKFED account on 11.10.2013. In respect of the debit from the account of Shri Dhanurdhar Champatiray, this Court, in W.P.(C) No. 2162 of 2023, by order dated 02.11.2023, directed the Indian Bank to refund the amount and, in compliance thereof, the Bank refunded a sum of Rs. 83.60 lakhs on 24.07.2024. (xii) In respect of the debit of Rs. 20 lakhs from the account of M/s. Optimal Products Private Limited, no refund has been made by the Bank, leading to the filing of the present writ petition. (xiii) It is further stated that the Bank conducted an internal enquiry through its competent authorities and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the concerned officer. (xiv) The petitioner-company submitted a representation dated 04.09.2013 to the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, setting out the details of the transactions, which was acknowledged by the Bank. No response was received to the said representation. Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 5 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions. (i) The petitioner submitted that on 18.06.2012 an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was debited from its cash credit account on the assurance that the said amount would be kept in a parking account of the Bank and would be restored to its account as and when required, without charging interest. (ii) The petitioner contended that on the same date, instead of the amount being retained in the parking account, the said amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was transferred to three different accounts, including the overdraft account of M/s. Orissa State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., the cash credit account of Shri Satish Unnikrishnan Menon, and an account maintained by the concerned bank officer, which, according to the petitioner, was done without its knowledge. (iii) The petitioner asserted that thereafter further transfers were made from the said account on 19.06.2012 and 21.06.2012 to other bank accounts, as reflected in the charge-sheet submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. (iv) The petitioner submitted that despite the debit of Rs. 20 lakhs from its account, interest continued to be charged on the said amount and, upon enquiry, the Bank attributed the same to technical issues in the system. The petitioner further contended that amounts of Rs. 56,000/- on 31.08.2012 and Rs. 95,000/- on 07.03.2013 were subsequently credited to the account towards interest earlier charged. Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 6 (v) The petitioner asserted that when it sought restoration of the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs to its cash credit account, the said amount was not restored and, instead, the cash credit limit was increased to Rs. 50.00 lakhs without its consent, which was again attributed by the Bank to technical reasons. (vi) The petitioner submitted that a complaint was lodged before the Central Bureau of Investigation by senior officials of the Bank in respect of the transactions in question and that, upon investigation, a charge-sheet dated 18.04.2013 was filed. The petitioner contended that the said charge- sheet records debits from multiple accounts, including a debit of Rs. 20 lakhs from the account of the petitioner, in connection with the acts of the concerned bank officer. (vii) The petitioner asserted that in respect of other accounts affected by the same transactions, the Bank refunded amounts, including refund of Rs. 43.00 lakhs to the MARKFED account and refund of Rs. 83.60 lakhs to another account holder pursuant to directions issued by this Court. The petitioner submitted that notwithstanding the above, the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs debited from its account has not been refunded till date. (viii) The petitioner contended that the Bank conducted an internal enquiry in relation to the transactions in question and initiated disciplinary proceedings against the concerned officer. (ix) The petitioner asserted that it submitted a representation dated 04.09.2013 to the Bank seeking refund of the said amount, which was acknowledged but not responded to, leaving the petitioner with no alternative but to approach this Court. Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 7 III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) It was submitted that the present writ petition has been filed for the second time on the same cause of action, on the same set of facts and on the same grounds as W.P.(C) No. 9621 of 2024, which had earlier been disposed of by this Court by order dated 10.07.2024 granting liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate legal remedy. It was contended that both writ petitions arise out of the same transaction relating to reduction of the cash credit limit and transfer of Rs. 20 lakhs to a parking account on 18.06.2012 and that, in the absence of any fresh cause of action, the present writ petition is not maintainable. (ii) It was contended that the borrower is a private limited company and, under the provisions of the Companies Act, acts through resolutions of its competent authority. It was submitted that no board resolution or extract of resolution, duly authorised, has been placed on record to show that the borrower had resolved to seek reduction of the cash credit limit by Rs. 20 lakhs, to agree to transfer the said amount to a parking account, or to authorise the filing of the present writ petition. (iii) It was submitted that the Bank has placed on record copies of transfer vouchers bearing the signature of Shri P. Vivek for transfer of an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs from the cash credit account to a parking account and for further transfer of a portion of the said amount to other accounts. It was contended that the said documents raise questions regarding the conduct of the petitioner. Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 8 (iv) It was further submitted that the criminal proceedings initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation are still pending and that the charge-sheet filed in the matter is subject to trial. It was contended that, in view of the pendency of the said proceedings, no final conclusion can be arrived at at this stage and, therefore, the present writ petition is premature. (v) It was submitted that the cash credit (OCC) loan account of the petitioner- company has since been closed on 25.02.2022. (vi) It was contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable as it essentially involves a money claim and raises several disputed questions of fact. It was further submitted that, in the absence of any board resolution authorising the alleged actions relied upon by the petitioner, including the filing of the present writ petition, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. IV. COURT’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING: 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and materials placed on record. 6. The grievance raised in the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner in his capacity as Managing Director of M/s. Optimal Products Private Limited, relates to the alleged unauthorised debit of an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs from the cash credit account of the said company maintained with the opposite party Bank. The relief sought herein is a direction for refund of the said amount along with interest. 7. Upon perusal of the record, it emerges that the transactions complained of do not exist in isolation, but form part of a broader set of financial transactions which have already attracted criminal investigation by the Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 9 Central Bureau of Investigation. A charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and the criminal proceedings are stated to be pending consideration before the competent criminal court. 8. The materials placed before this Court further indicate that the Bank has relied upon certain transfer vouchers bearing the signature of the petitioner, who was acting as the Managing Director of the borrower company at the relevant point of time. The petitioner, however, disputes the scope and legal effect of such signatures and asserts that while the debit of the amount was agreed to on specific assurances, the subsequent diversion of funds to third-party accounts was effected without his knowledge or consent. These rival assertions necessarily raise disputed questions of fact concerning the nature and extent of authorisation and the manner in which the funds were ultimately dealt with. 9. This Court is also conscious of the fact that, in respect of certain other accounts affected by transactions arising out of the same set of dealings, the Bank has refunded amounts, including pursuant to orders passed by this Court. However, whether the petitioner stands on the same footing as such account holders would require a detailed factual examination. Such an exercise would necessarily involve appreciation of evidence and adjudication of disputed issues, which is beyond the permissible scope of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. The pendency of criminal proceedings arising out of the same transactions further persuades this Court to exercise judicial restraint. Entertaining the present writ petition at this stage may result in Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 10 overlapping consideration of issues which fall within the domain of the criminal court. 11. As regards the objection raised by the opposite parties that the present writ petition is a second writ petition, this Court notes that the earlier writ petition was disposed of without any adjudication on merits, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate legal remedies. The present writ petition, therefore, cannot be rejected solely on the ground of it being a second Writ Petition. 12. Nevertheless, the grant of such liberty does not, by itself, mandate this Court to entertain the writ petition in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, particularly where the dispute involves contested factual issues and is connected with transactions which are already the subject- matter of criminal proceedings. 13. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present matter is not one where interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted. 14. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties, and all such issues are left open to be adjudicated by the appropriate forum in accordance with law. V. CONCLUSION: 15. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such remedies as may be available to him in law before the appropriate forum. Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 11 16. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 9th Jan., 2026/- Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified "