KABITA PATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant Smt. Kabita Patra under section 13 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (hereafter for short 'O.P.I.D. Act, 2011') challenging the impugned order dated 6.10.2015 passed by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge- cum-Designated Court, Cuttack in Interim Application No.02 of 2014 in rejecting her prayer for release of her bank accounts from provisional attachment and for permitting her to operate such accounts.

(2.) The appellant who is opp.party no. 23 in the said proceeding filed a petition on dated 31.7.2015 for releasing three of her bank accounts lying with Axis Bank from ad-interim order of attachment.

(3.) Challenging the impugned order, it is contended by Mrs. Chandana Panda, learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order of rejection is illegal, perverse and not based on any acceptable evidence on record and the order has been passed without application of judicial mind to the facts of the case and that the order of ad-interim attachment passed against the appellant is without any evidence, proof or proper finding which is absolutely illegal and unjust. It is further contended that the money kept in the aforesaid bank accounts do not belong to any financial establishment as defined in section 2 (d) of the O.P.I.D. Act, 2011 nor the amounts deposited in the bank accounts have been procured from any financial establishment or in the name of any other person or any deposit collected by any financial establishment to be liable for attachment under the said Act. It is further contended that the bank accounts of the appellant do not constitute any part of the movable properties of any Companies of AT group either as Manager, Director, Share holder or beneficiary to warrant the said bank accounts to be attached nor the money in question in deposit therein are part of deposits made by any depositor in any financial establishment. Learned counsel for the State opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.