Nominal Index [Citations 1-175]MH BLAND S.L. v. MV PROPEL FORTUNE (IMO 9500699), 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 1Doyel Dey v. The Judge, Family Court, Balasore & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 2Sonel Sekhar Nayak & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 3Binod Pattanayak v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 4Ashok Kumar Swain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations 1-175]
MH BLAND S.L. v. MV PROPEL FORTUNE (IMO 9500699), 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 1
Doyel Dey v. The Judge, Family Court, Balasore & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 2
Sonel Sekhar Nayak & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 3
Binod Pattanayak v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 4
Ashok Kumar Swain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 5
State of Odisha v. Dengun Sabar & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 6
IM v. MM, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 7
Mohammad Iqbal Hussain v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 8
Anup Ghosh @ Anup Kumar Ghose & Ors. v. State of Orissa, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 9
Aryan Swarup Parida v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 10
Chandrakanta Dash @ Das & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 11
Rabindra Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 12
Rajdhani Coir v. Micro, Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Nagpur, Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 13
Kishore Biswal v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 14
M/s. Jaycee Housing Private v. Neelachal Buildtech & Resorts Pvt., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 15
Sumatimani Sau & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 16
Jyotirmayee Dutta v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 17
Arun Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha (Vigilance), 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 18
Swarnalata Jena v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 19
Kabita Nath v. National Insurance Company Ltd., Cuttack & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 20
Madan Kumar Satpathy v. Priyadarshini Pati, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 21
Nabaghana Sahoo v. Smruti Prava Sahoo & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 22
Belan Bibi v. Sk. Allauddin & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 23
Ravi Kumar Kukreja v. Collector-cum-Appellate Authority, Rayagada & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 24
Prajna Prakash Nayak v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 25
Basudev Behera v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 26
X v. Y, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 27
Dilip Ranjan Nath v. Republic of India (CBI), 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 28
Paradip International Cargo Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai v. M.V. Debi (IMO.9616735), 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 29
Manoj Kumar Munda v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 30
Nilakantha Pradhan v. Government of India & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 31
Dolagobinda Jena v. State of Orissa, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 32
Tathagata Satapathy v. HDFC Bank Ltd., Mumbai & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 33
Tapaswini Acharya v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 34
Priyadarshini Amrita Panda v. Biswajit Pati, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 35
Dr. Snigdha Prava Mishra v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 36
X v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 37
Biswakesh Mohapatra v. The Odisha State Bar Council & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 38
Nirmal Karnakar v. Parbati @ Parbati Karnakar, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 39
Bhupendra Singh Notey v. Gagandeep Kaur, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 40
Tarun Kumar Gadabad v. Subhalaxmi Lenka & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 41
Ramesh Chandra Sethi v. State of Orissa, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 42
Fayazuddin Khan @ Badal Khan v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 43
Kshirbati @ Kharabati Naik v. Premsila Naik & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 44
Sri Chittaranjan Senapati v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 45
Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra & Anr. v. State (Vigilance), 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 46
Ramesh Chandra Sahu & Anr. v. The State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 47
Shyam Sundar Agrawalla v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 48
Smt. Anupama Biswal v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 49
Bishnupriya Chand @ Hansita Abhilipsa v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 50
BRP v. SP, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 51
Gourav Kumar Hota v. Ajay Kumar Barik, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 52
Duryodhan Sahoo v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 53
ALPHARD MARITIME LTD. v. OCEAN JADE (IMO:9660750) & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 54
Sadananda Naik v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 55
MS v. RS, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 56
Deepak Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 57
Rajesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 58
M/s. Andhavarapu Power Projects (P) Limited, Andhra Pradesh v. Odisha Renewable Development Agency, Khurda, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 59
State of Odisha v. PKD & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 60
Smt. Sandhya Rani Sahoo @ Mohanty v. Smt. Anusaya Mohanty, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 61
Niharkanti Mishra v. Nihar Ranjan Patnaik & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 62
Debabrata Debadarsan Palei v. Subhakanti Patra & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 63
Daktar Bhoi v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 64
Lakshman Srinivasan v. Republic of India (CBI), 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 65
Antaryami Mishra v. Union of India & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 66
State of Odisha v. Sanjeeb Kerketta, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 67
V. Venu @ Veliseti Benu & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 68
Shivananda Ray v. Principal Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 69
Malaya Ranjan Dash v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 70
Malaya Ranjan Dash v. Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 71
Epari Sushma v. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 72
Hamid Sha v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 73
X v. Y, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 74
Ramakrushna Nayak v. Manoj Kumar Behera & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 75
X v. Y., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 76
Pramod Kumar Singh v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 77
State of Odisha v. Prakash Behera & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 78
Dibakar Patra v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 79
Bishnupada Sethi & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), New Delhi & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 80
X v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 81
Kumarpur Sasan Juba Gosti Kendra & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 82
M/s Odisha Mining Corporation Limited Versus Union of India, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 83
State of Odisha & Anr. v. Smt. Anindita Mishra, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 84
Pranaya Kishore Harichandan v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 85
State Bank of India v. Rama Krishna Behera & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 86
Bidyabharati Panda v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 87
Basanta Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 88
Union of India & Ors. v. Pranabananda Dash, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 89
Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 90
CP & Ors. v. JD, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 91
VKB v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 92
Rasana Mallick & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors. | Surama Jani & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 93
Dr. Randall Sequeira v. Collector and District Magistrate, Rayagada & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 94
State of Odisha v. Prakash Behera @ Babuli & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 95
Lal Baba Dargah (Mazahar) v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 96
Dhiman Chakma v. State of Odisha (Vig.), 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 97
Chintan Raghuvanshi & Anr. v. Republic of India (CBI), 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 98
Bishnupada Sethi v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 99
Smt. Umamani Nayak & Ors. v. CEO, TPNODL, Balasore & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 100
Sangram Keshari Routray v. Hexagon Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 101
Hari Shankar Patnaik v. State of Orissa & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 102
Jati @ Susanta Rout & Anr. v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 103
Chandia @ Chandi Sethy & Ors. v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 104
Dwaru Patra v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 105
Nirmala Sahu v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 106
State of Odisha v. Niranjan Mallik & tagged appeal, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 107
Lokanath Behera v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 108
Registrar (Judicial), Orissa High Court, Cuttack v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 109
Prajnya Parimita Barik v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 110
Dinabandhu Dehury & Ors. v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 111
Jayanta Kumar Das v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 112
Golapi Majhi v. Bhabanishankar Budulal @ Kisan & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 113
Odisha Public Service Commission v. Biswajit Panda, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 114
Bishnu Charan Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 115
Harsha C v. State of Orissa, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 116
Paradip Port Trust (PPT) v. M/s Modi Project Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 117
Udayanath Sahoo (Dead) represented by LRs. & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 118
Md. Usman Khan v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 119
Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack & Ors. v. Malaya Ranjan Dash & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 120
Satyajit Swain v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 121
G. Debendra Rao v. G. Puspa Prabha Rao & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 122
Narottam Prusty v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 123
General Manager (HR), Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others v. Ashok Kumar Giri & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 124
Priyadarsini Das v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 125
Akshaya Dishri v. The Commissioner of Endowments Odisha, Bhubaneswar & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 126
Hemanta Nayak v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 127
Santosh Patra v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 128
Santosh Ku. Sahoo v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 129
Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 130
Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Joint Labour Commissioner & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 131
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Adarsh Nobel Corporation Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 132
Syed Najam Ahmed v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 133
Rasmita Nayak v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 134
Registrar (Judicial), Orissa High Court, Cuttack v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 135
Ramesh Chandra Sahoo v. State of Orissa, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 136
Sanjay Sharma v. Dolly @ Sakhi Sharma & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 137
Samira Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha & tagged matters, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 138
Bharat Chandra Mallick v. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 139
Director, Land Records & Surveys Govt. of Odisha & Anr. v. Sylvesa Infotech Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 140
Sukanta Kumar Mohanty & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 141
Charulata Beura & Anr. v. Ranjana Pradhan & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 142
Sangram Keshari Behera v. State of Odisha & Anr. and tagged matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 143
G. Krutibasa Patra @ Gudla Krutibas Patra v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 144
Geeta Rath v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 145
Susanta Kumar Samal v. State of Odisha | Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 146
Sabita Sahu v. Nishakar Singh & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 147
X v. Y, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 148
Smt. Puspalata Samal v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 149
Kanhu Charan Sahoo v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 150
Dr. Ashok Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 151
Md. Abdur Raheman @ Md. Abdur Raheman Alli Khan v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 152
M/s. Indian Oil Adani Ventures Limited v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 153
Dr. Subash Mohapatra v. Dharmendra Pradhan & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 154
Khetrabasi Behera & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 155
Jatia Hembram v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 156
Sabita Nishank v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 157
Vicky Kumar @ Kashyap & Anr. v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 158
Ranjan Kumar Tripathy & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 159
Maa Tarini Poultries Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Bank & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 160
Ramakanta Majhi v. Santan Majhi & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 161
NAFED v M/s Siddarth Rice Mills, Kesinga, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 162
Soumya Ranjan Panda v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 163
Rohit Anand Das & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 164
M/s. ESL Steel Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 165
Amit Kumar Das v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST Circle, Jajpur & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 166
Subrat Rout v. The Commissioner of (C.T. & G.S.T.), Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 167
Sayed Ekram Saha v. Haroon Khan & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 168
Kalyani Swain & Ors. v. Bijay Kumar Swain & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 169
Kabita Patra v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 170
M/s. Simon India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CT & GST & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 171
Agastya Das v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 172
Auroglobal Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 173
M/s. Ayushi Galvano v. Commissioner (Audit), GST and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Audit Commissionerate & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 174
Priyam Pratham Sabat v. State of Odisha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 175
Reported Judgments/Orders
Orissa High Court Orders Release Of Singaporean Cargo Vessel A Day After Its Arrest At Paradip Port
Case Title: MH BLAND S.L. v. MV PROPEL FORTUNE (IMO 9500699)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 1
The Orissa High Court ordered release of Singaporean cargo ship 'MV Propel Fortune (IMO 9500699)' a day after its arrest at the Paradip Port for non-payment of dues against supply of necessaries. The Court agreed to release the vessel after it offered to draw a demand draft of Rs.15,56,100/- in favour of the Registrar (Judicial) of the Court.
Case Title: Doyel Dey v. The Judge, Family Court, Balasore & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 2
The Court held that consent for divorce can be unilaterally withdrawn by a spouse any time before the passing of decree granting divorce on the basis of mutual consent, even after conclusion of arguments. Reiterating the significance of 'mutual consent' of spouses for grant of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –
“…the law as has been explained by the Apex Court reveals that any of the spouse can withdraw consent unilaterally and consent being the essence of grant of decree of divorce U/S. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, no decree of divorce can be passed U/S.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, if any of the parties withdraws such consent just passing of decree.”
Case Title: Sonel Sekhar Nayak & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 3
The Orissa High Court quashed an FIR and criminal proceedings against some law students of a private Law University of Bhubaneswar, who were accused of ragging a first-year law student and threatening him of dire consequences. Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra agreed to quash the FIR on the basis of a mutual settlement arrived in between the accused-students and the father of the victim-student. However, the Court expressed deep dismay over the conduct of the accused-students and observed –
“The petitioners before this Court are the students of law. The conduct of the petitioners are unbecoming of student of law. A good law student could eventually be a good lawyer that goes beyond the academic achievements. It is expected from a lawyer that besides having legal knowledge he supports the cause of vulnerables, advocates for the justice and become voice for voice less.”
Case Title: Binod Pattanayak v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 4
The High Court refused to entertain a petition filed for quashing the offence under Sections 276(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating that the Petitioner-accused should have sought compounding of the offence. The Bench Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed –
“In the present regime, where the compounding of the offence is permissible, the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may not be necessarily invoked by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the petitioner may resort to the procedural remedy under Section 320 Cr.P.C. by relying upon the Circular dated 17.10.2024 and seek for compounding of the offences complained off against him by the Revenue.”
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Swain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 5
The Orissa High Court declined to grant relief to a number of photographers/guides working in the precincts of Konark Sun Temple who challenged a new policy requiring minimum qualification of matriculation for grant of license to operate in the premises of the world-renowned historical monument. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Savitri Ratho was of the view that prescription of a minimum educational qualification would not amount to violation of fundamental right of the appellants under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Case Title: State of Odisha v. Dengun Sabar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 6
The High Court commuted the death sentence awarded to nine persons by the Sessions Judge, Rayagada for committing murder of three members of a family in 2016, suspecting their involvement in witchcraft. While lessening the sentence to imprisonment till the end of natural life, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik was of the view that reformation of the condemned prisoners cannot be ruled out and held –
“We should not forget that the criminal, however ruthless he might be, is nevertheless a human being and is entitled to a life of dignity notwithstanding his crime. It is for the prosecution and the Court to determine whether such a person, notwithstanding his crime, can be reformed and rehabilitated.”
Case Title: IM v. MM
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 7
The Court held that if husband indulges in character assassination of wife without producing proof regarding infidelity, it is a sufficient ground for her to live separately and she shall not be debarred from claiming maintenance as per Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While upholding the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –
“It is quite natural for a wife to refuse to live with her husband who doubted her chastity, inasmuch as the chastity of a woman is not only dearest to her, but also is a priceless possession in her. Thus, when the character of wife being doubted by her husband without any proof, she has enough reason to live separately from her husband.”
Case Title: Mohammad Iqbal Hussain v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 8
The Orissa High Court denied bail to a man who was found to be having links with a Pakistani Intelligence Officer linked to Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and for allegedly receiving money in his account on the behest of such Pakistani national. Suspecting a deep-rooted conspiracy involving Pakistani Intelligence Officers, the Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held that the investigation suggested a deep-rooted conspiracy involving Pakistani Intelligence Officers, who are said to be operating a network in this country.
Case Title: Anup Ghosh @ Anup Kumar Ghose & Ors. v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 9
A Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra clarified that there is no strict statutory embargo barring dispensation of personal attendance of accused under Section 205 of the CrPC in cases involving offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Case Title: Aryan Swarup Parida v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 10
The High Court denied relief to a National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) under-graduate program 2022 candidate who lost chance to get admission into a government medical college due to a 'technical glitch' allegedly on the part of the Medical Counselling Committee. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Savitri Ratho found the dispute to be factual in nature which could not have been entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Chandrakanta Dash @ Das & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 11
The High Court asked certain undergraduate students, accused of attempting to murder a classmate, to visit Chaudwar Circle Jail, Cuttack, inspect hygiene conditions maintained inside such premises and prepare a report suggesting positive measures. While handing out such a unique condition for quashing pending criminal proceedings, the Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra said –
“By visiting the jail premises, they need to realize the living condition of the prisoners in the jail, that experience will impel them to come out from the cocoon of their comfort to perceive the hard reality of life, and value human dignity and nudge into a positive direction and reform themselves into a good citizen.”
Case Title: Rabindra Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 12
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Savitri Ratho held that there is no bar either under the Code of Criminal Procedure ('CrPC') or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act ('NDPS Act') for interim release of vehicles seized for commission of offences under the latter Act and thus, those can be released during the pendency of investigation/trial by putting appropriate conditions.
Case Title: Rajdhani Coir v. Micro, Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Nagpur, Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 13
The Bench of Justice Krushna Ram Mohapatra dismissed a writ petition upon holding that the petitioner, without availing the efficacious statutory remedy u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act had approached the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for which the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretionary power to entertain it. Additionally, the Court held that violation of any provisions of the Arbitration Act and/or the MSMED Act can be effectively adjudicated by the competent Court in an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act read with Section 19 of the MSMED Act.
Employee Has No Vested Right To Choose Place Of Posting & Designation: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Kishore Biswal v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 14
The Orissa High Court reiterated that an employee has no vested right to choose his place of posting or designation and it is only the prerogative of the employer to decide the same keeping the public interest and larger exigency in view. While setting aside challenge of the petitioner to the decision of the Administrative Tribunal, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho held –
“…posting of an employee is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular employee is to be posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency and the employee has no vested right to get a posting at a particular place or choose to serve at a particular place for a particular time…”
Case Title: M/s. Jaycee Housing Private v. Neelachal Buildtech & Resorts Pvt.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 15
The Single Bench of Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi held that a plain reading of Sections 6 and 10(3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, leads to the conclusion that the appropriate 'court' to consider a commercial dispute, even if it arises under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, would be the commercial Court and an appeal would, therefore, lie only before the Commercial Appellate Court being the District Court.
Case Title: Sumatimani Sau & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 16
The High Court restored the custody of an infant girl with her biological mother, who was accused of abandoning her while stealing a male child from a hospital. The Court applied the 'doctrine of tender years' to grant relief to the mother who is facing trial for commission of offence of kidnapping. The Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra highlighted the deeply-entrenched societal biases which tend parents to prefer male child over a female child. The Judge observed –
“Deep rooted social malady to have a tendency of preference of a male child over a female child is the real cause of dispute. The facts of this case bring to light the deeply entrenched societal biases that prioritise male child over female child often driven by patriarchal and cultural practices that favours male lineage for inheritance, ritual and property right. The alleged action of the petitioners abandoning their biological daughter in favour of a male child reflects this regressive mindset.”
Case Title: Jyotirmayee Dutta v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 17
The Orissa High Court criticised the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) for "haphazard scrutiny" which resulted in non-evaluation of a long question carrying 12.5 marks of a candidate of Odisha Judicial Service Examination-2022. Acknowledging the serious flaw in marking process highlighted by the petitioner, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash said –
“…her case underscores a critical issue as to had she not requested her answer script, she would have not known about the non-evaluation of one question. The Petitioner's case, while unsuccessful, has highlighted a critical flaw in the system and her grievance regarding the non-evaluation of a question was legitimate and genuine one.”
Case Title: Arun Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha (Vigilance)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 18
The Orissa High Court quashed a criminal case against a 'name-sake person', for receiving a compensation amount against the acquisition of land in good faith, whose name, parentage and address resembled another person who was in fact entitled to the amount. As the petitioner returned the received money after knowing about the mistake, the Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra deemed it proper to discharge him from criminal charges and observed –
“Returning money especially when it was received mistakenly or unfairly demonstrates bona fide. It not only reflects honesty but also a sense of ethical responsibility. In legal and moral context, such action strengthens trust and shows that person has no intention of wrongful gain. Even in Bhagavad Gita, it is said “Realisation guilt followed by sincere repentance and devotion leads to redemption and peace.”
Case Title: Swarnalata Jena v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 19
The Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy held that before passing order for investigation, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to hear the submissions of the police officer upon his refusal to register First Information Report (FIR), apart from considering the application supported by an affidavit made by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police and making proper inquiry.
Case Title: Kabita Nath v. National Insurance Company Ltd., Cuttack & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 20
The Orissa High Court held that the 'next friend', as provided under Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), need not necessarily be a 'duly appointed guardian' as defined under Section 4(b) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (the 1956 Act). Elucidating the position of law as to eligibility for appointment as 'next friend', the Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra held –
“'Next friend' acts for the benefit of the “minor” or other person who is unable to look after his or her own interest or manage his or her own law suit, without being a regularly appointed guardian as per the Guardianship Act.”
Case Title: Madan Kumar Satpathy v. Priyadarshini Pati
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 21
The High Court held that law does not favour a well-educated woman to sit idle without trying to pursue any work merely to incumber the liability of paying maintenance upon the husband for her sustenance. While lessening the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –
“Law never appreciates those wives, who remain idle only to saddle the liability of paying maintenance on the husband by not working or not trying to work despite having proper and high qualification.”
Case Title: Nabaghana Sahoo v. Smruti Prava Sahoo & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 22
The High Court expressed displeasure over the recalcitrance of a Family Court in following guidelines issued by the Supreme Court which mandated a person to file an affidavit disclosing his/her assets while making a maintenance application and the respondent to submit his reply along with a similar asset affidavit, only after which a maintenance case can be decided. While remitting the case back to the Court below for fresh disposal in strict accordance with the aforesaid guidelines, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –
“When the principle culled out in a decision is directed to be followed mandatorily, the Court concerned is under obligation to follow such guidelines, but in this case, the learned trial Court having not followed the provisions of the guidelines issued in Rajnesh (supra), the matter is required to be remitted back for fresh disposal in accordance with law by complying the guidelines of the Rajnesh (supra)”
Case Title: Belan Bibi v. Sk. Allauddin & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 23
The Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held that incapacity of a leprosy patient to execute sale deed cannot ipso facto be presumed unless it is further proved to the satisfaction of the Court that he had no fingers and palm, rendering him physically incapable.
Case Title: Ravi Kumar Kukreja v. Collector-cum-Appellate Authority, Rayagada & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 24
The Court held that simply being a 'senior citizen' does not automatically entitle a person to receive maintenance from children unless shown that he/she is unable to maintain himself/herself from own earnings or out of owned property. While clarifying the position of law under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed that an order of maintenance can be passed on the finding that the children or the relatives, as the case may be, have neglected or refused to maintain a senior citizen being unable to maintain himself.
Case Title: Prajna Prakash Nayak v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 25
The Orissa High Court held that a Magistrate can order investigation against a public servant only after complying with the requirements provided under Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), i.e. upon receiving report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to him and after considering the assertions made by the public servant as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged. While setting aside an order for investigation against highly-ranked police officials, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –
“The new provision in Sub-Section(4) to Section 175 of the BNSS is an additional safeguard provided for the public servant against whom an accusation of committing cognizable offence arising in course of discharge of his official duty has been made and, therefore, any Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance U/S.210 of BNSS may order an investigation against a public servant upon receiving a complaint arising in course of discharge of his official duty, only after complying with the procedure prescribed in Section 175(4)(a)(b) of the BNSS.”
Case Title: Basudev Behera v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 26
The Orissa High Court ordered release of a person accused of committing multiple financial frauds involving lakhs of rupees after finding that as an undertrial, he has completed more than half of the period of sentence prescribed for the most grievous offence for which he has been charged for. Giving weightage to liberty of the petitioner over onerous bail conditions previously imposed upon him, the Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed –
“Liberty is the breath of life. Sans it, it's like a bird with crippled wings…Inability to comply such bail condition despite repeated reduction of cash security amount by this Court on the application of the petitioner, itself speaks of the onerous nature of the bail condition. Condition of bail being a procedural facet of the matter, should not be allowed to prevail upon fundamental right to life and liberty of an accused.”
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 27
The Orissa High Court heavily criticized a Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act ('POCSO Act') for treating an accused as 'juvenile' and referring the case to Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) despite having enough materials to suggest that the last act in the 'continuing offence' was committed by the accused much after he attained majority. While reprimanding the senior judicial officer (in the cadre of District Judge) for such procedural error, the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed –
“The notion that proceedings should commence under juvenile jurisdiction simply because the accused was a minor at the inception of a continuing offence is a proposition so untenable, so discordant with established legal doctrine, that it raises profound concerns, not merely about the fairness and reliability of the adjudication, but about the very competence of the judge who rendered it.”
Case Title: Dilip Ranjan Nath v. Republic of India (CBI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 28
The Orissa High Court held that detention of an accused as an undertrial for more than six years can be considered as violation of right to speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. While granting bail to a person accused of duping gullible investors of crores of rupees, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –
“True it is that what extent of time would be considered as an infringement of right to speedy trial has not been defined in any statute, but by any standard, the detention of the Petitioner in custody for around more than 6 and ½ years as has been found in this case is considered to be infringement of right to speedy trial as guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Case Title: Paradip International Cargo Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai v. M.V. Debi (IMO.9616735)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 29
The Bench of Justice MS Raman ordered release of cargo ship 'MV Debi' which was arrested at the Paradip Port and subsequently ordered to be auctioned last year for its failure to pay berth hire and penal berth hire charges amounting to almost eight crore rupees. The Court also ordered refund of the court fees paid by the plaintiff-Paradip International Cargo Terminal Pvt. Ltd.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Munda v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 30
The Orissa High Court quashed rape charges against a man who was accused of having repeated sex with a woman/complainant stretching over a period of about nine years on false promise of marriage. The Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi said that non-culmination of the relationship into marriage may be a source of personal grievance but not a crime and thus, he observed –
“The law does not extend its protection to every broken promise nor does it impose criminality upon every failed relationship. The Petitioner and the prosecutrix entered into a relationship in 2012, when both were competent, consenting adults, capable of making their own choices, of exercising their own will, and of shaping their own futures. That the relationship did not culminate in marriage may be a source of personal grievance, but the failure of love is not a crime, nor does the law transform disappointment into deception.”
Case Title: Nilakantha Pradhan v. Government of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 31
The Orissa High Court reiterated that a preventive detention order shall be rendered unconstitutional for being violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution if it does not specify each and every ground based upon which the order of detention was passed against the detenu.
While setting aside a preventive detention order issued against the petitioner, who is accused of drugs-peddling, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed –
“The petitioner was kept in darkness that the Detaining Authority has arrived at its subjective satisfaction also basing on those five cases and therefore, he could not have asked for the documents of such cases to file the representation. The conduct of the Authority in debarring the petitioner to make an effective representation violates the constitutional safeguards enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.”
Case Title: Dolagobinda Jena v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 32
The Orissa High Court upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed against a man, who was held guilty of having sex with a minor girl by deceitfully inducing her to believe that he was her lawfully married husband and thereafter, causing miscarriage by administering pills. The Single Bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, however, released him under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act by taking into account the fact that the offence is of the year 1991 and the convict is now 63 years old.
Case Title: Tathagata Satapathy v. HDFC Bank Ltd., Mumbai & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 33
The Orissa High Court dismissed a plea made by former Member of Parliament (MP) Tathagata Satapathy challenging the requirement of mandatory linking of Aadhaar to Permanent Account Number (PAN) for the purpose of operating dematerialized accounts ('demat accounts'). While holding the aforesaid requirement to be constitutional and a reasonable restriction on 'right to privacy', the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed –
“The mandatory linking of Aadhaar with PAN and Demat accounts under Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act aligns with the constitutional principles laid down in Puttaswamy and its triple test: legality, necessity, and proportionality. Section 139AA satisfies this test as it is backed by a valid legislative mandate, serves a legitimate state interest, and imposes only a proportionate restriction on privacy.”
Case Title: Tapaswini Acharya v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 34
The Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held that claim for regularization of service can be denied due to an extended delay in filing, coupled with the petitioner's subsequent employment in another institution. The Judge further observed –
“It is settled law that even though no period of limitation is prescribed for entertaining a Writ Petition yet, stale claims are not to be considered. Further, an application which is grossly delayed without any plausible explanation being offered for the delay also should not be entertained.”
Case Title: Priyadarshini Amrita Panda v. Biswajit Pati
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 35
The Orissa High Court held that it is not mandatory on the part of Court to hold a preliminary inquiry as provided under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) into commission of offences referred to in Section 215, BNSS in order to make or reject to make complaint. While clarifying the procedural provision, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –
“…it appears that Sec. 379 of BNSS does not mandate a preliminary enquiry, so also such a course may not be required to be adopted in every cases. However, the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offence referred to in Sec. 215(1)(b) of the BNSS.”
Case Title: Dr. Snigdha Prava Mishra v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 36
The Orissa High Court suggested the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Odisha to bring in necessary amendments to the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 ('the 1992 Rules') so as to put a bar on large-scale exit of government doctors through the voluntary retirement scheme. Expressing deep concern over huge exodus of government physicians, the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed –
“A troubling pattern has emerged as doctors across the country continue to seek voluntary retirement in alarming numbers. This is not merely an administrative inconvenience but a growing public health crisis. If left unaddressed, this unchecked exodus will weaken the very foundation of the healthcare system. It will leave the sick without healers, the suffering without aid, and the state unable to fulfil its most fundamental duty, which is the protection of life.”
Case Title: X v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 37
The Orissa High Court allowed the medical termination of more than 24-week-old pregnancy of a minor rape victim aged about 13-year-old, who is also suffering from serious diseases like sickle cell anaemia and epilepsy. The Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi termed the unwanted pregnancy of the minor as an 'unbearable burden' on her body and mind and remarked –
“Forcing a thirteen-year-old to carry a pregnancy to term would place an unbearable burden on her body and mind, one that she is neither prepared for nor capable of bearing. While termination is not without risk, it prevents the far graver consequences of childbirth and forced motherhood at an age where such responsibilities are unthinkable.”
Case Title: Biswakesh Mohapatra v. The Odisha State Bar Council & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 38
The Orissa High Court categorically held that the practice experience of an Advocate enrolled with the State Bar Council cannot be taken into account unless and until he qualifies the All-India Bar Examination (AIBE) conducted by the Bar Council of India (BCI). While disqualifying an Advocate from holding the post of 'treasurer' of a District Bar Association for lack of practice experience after qualifying AIBE, the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi referred to the All India Bar Examination Rules, 2010 and observed –
“A perusal of the above rule clearly demonstrates that the All India Bar Examination is mandatory for all law students graduating from the year 2009-10 onwards. Passing this examination is a critical requirement, directly linked to maintaining the standard of individuals seeking to obtain a license to practice law as a profession.”
Case Title: Nirmal Karnakar v. Parbati @ Parbati Karnakar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 39
The Orissa High Court ruled that a competent Court, considering facts and circumstances of the case as well as to provide just and fair means, can grant maintenance to wife exceeding the amount which she claimed in her application under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act'). Clarifying the disputed question concerning jurisdiction of Courts to grant enhanced maintenance, the Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed that the judicial discretion must be exercised to provide a fair and just maintenance amount, considering the dependent's actual needs and the payer's financial capability, even if the claim was initially understated.
Case Title: Bhupendra Singh Notey v. Gagandeep Kaur
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 40
The High Court remarked that a well-qualified husband, who quits his job to sit idle and remains unemployed in order to deprive his wife of maintenance, cannot be appreciated in a civilised society. While deciding a maintenance dispute, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy further observed –
“Remaining unemployed is one thing and sitting idle having qualification and prospect to earn is other thing and if a husband being well qualified sufficient enough to earn sits idle only to shift the burden on the wife and expects 'dole' by remaining entangled in litigation should not only be deprecated, but also be discouraged inasmuch as law never helps indolent, so also idles and does not intend to create an army of self made lazy idles.”
Case Title: Tarun Kumar Gadabad v. Subhalaxmi Lenka & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 41
The Court remarked that an able-bodied husband having government service is statutorily required to maintain his wife and children notwithstanding any marital or other dissention between them. While deciding the challenge to a maintenance order, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –
“…fact remains that once a relationship of marriage is found to be admitted and not dissolved by any competent Court of law, the husband being an abled body person and working in a Government employment is statutorily required to maintain his wife and children, even there is a dissention between the parties.”
Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Sethi v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 42
The Orissa High Court reiterated that 'corporal punishment' by a school teacher upon a student for the purpose of disciplining him cannot amount to an offence under Section 82 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 ('the Act'). However, the Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra acknowledged the grief of the parents for loss of life of their child and directed the petitioner-teacher to pay a compensation amount of ₹1 lakh to the deceased's family.
Case Title: Fayazuddin Khan @ Badal Khan v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 43
The High Court has recently quashed charges, inter alia, under the stringent Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ('POCSO Act') against a Muslim man, accused of kidnapping a minor Hindu girl and having repeated sexual intercourse with her, as he later married the victim girl and started a happy matrimonial life. Taking into account the interest of the parties vis-à-vis the prevalent law, the Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed –
“Running a trial against the petitioner in this case would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly given the fact that the victim and the petitioner have entered into a marital relationship and are living together in harmony. Sending the man to prison would not only be unjust but would also work against the best interests of the victim, as it could disrupt the peaceful life they have built together.”
Dispute Regarding Marital Status Is Within Exclusive Jurisdiction Of Family Court: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Kshirbati @ Kharabati Naik v. Premsila Naik & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 44
The Orissa High Court held that dispute as to marital status of parties comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court established under the Family Courts Act, 1984 ('the Act') and the same cannot be decided by any other civil court. While nullifying the order passed by a Civil Judge (Senior Division), being altered by the order of the District Judge, the Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed –
“It is surprising that even after establishment and functioning of the Family Court, the trial Court not only proceeded with the suit but also decided it finally. Even more surprisingly, the First Appellate Court entertained the appeal arising out of the judgment and the decree of the trial Court and reversed the same.”
Case Title: Sri Chittaranjan Senapati v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 45
The High Court reiterated that the leave encashment benefit of a retired government employee cannot be withheld only on the ground that a judicial or disciplinary proceeding was pending against him at the time of his superannuation. While setting aside the order, by which the said post-retirement financial benefit of the petitioner was kept at bay, the Single Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra observed –
“On a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case, further on close scrutiny of the legal provisions governing the field of sanction and disbursement of retiral benefits including cash equivalent of unutilized leave salary, this Court observes that there is no statutory provision either in the shape of an enactment or rules prohibiting payment of such amount to the employee who is found to be involved in a judicial proceeding or a disciplinary proceeding by the time he retires from Government Service.”
Case Title: Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra & Anr. v. State (Vigilance)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 46
The High Court reiterated that an accused should be discharged when the materials produced at the time of consideration for framing of charge are of such a nature that if remain unrebutted, those would not indicate culpability of the accused whatsoever. While ingeminating the principles of law governing discharge of accused under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('CrPC'), the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho held –
“If there is no ground for presuming that accused has committed an offence, the charges must be considered to be groundless. The ground may be any valid ground including the insufficiency of evidence to prove the charge. When the materials at the time of consideration for framing the charge are of such a nature that if unrebutted, it would make out no case whatsoever, the accused should be discharged.”
Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Sahu & Anr. v. The State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 47
The Orissa High Court reiterated that probate of Wills executed in ex-princely states/Gadajat states is not necessary and thus, the revenue authorities can proceed for mutation on the basis of un-probated Wills in such areas. A Single Bench of Justice Ananda Chandra Behera referred to a number of precedents on the above position of law and clarified that –
“If the Wills are executed in a place either outside the areas specified in the clauses of Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 or in respect of the immovable properties situated beyond the territories specified in clauses of Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, those areas/territories were under the ex-princely State called as Gadajat Wills, probate of such Wills are not required under law.”
Case Title: Shyam Sundar Agrawalla v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 48
The Orissa High Court held that it is mandatory for the Magistrate to record reasons for not only allowing but also for rejecting a discharge petition filed by an accused under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('CrPC'). Clarifying the requirement under the provision of law, the Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed that the language used in Section 245, “and record his reasons for so doing” cannot refer merely to a case where the application for discharge is allowed and not when the same is rejected.
Case Title: Smt. Anupama Biswal v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 49
In an important decision, the Orissa High Court held that a complainant cannot maintain a case for cheque bounce against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act') if she herself is a party to illegal transaction, or in other words, if initially credit was given by the complainant for achieving an illegal purpose. While quashing the charge under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused, the Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed –
“The doctrine of in pari delicto is clearly applicable in the present case. The Court should refuse to enforce illegal debt. The complainant, being a party to the illegal transaction out of which the present dispute has arisen, cannot encash from her own guilt. He has been equal partners in the illegal conduct indulged by the son of the petitioner.”
Case Title: Bishnupriya Chand @ Hansita Abhilipsa v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 50
The Orissa High Court granted bail to a couple accused of impersonating the daughter and son-in-law of Pramod Kumar Mishra, Principal Secretary to Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, for creating undue influence and exerting pressure on senior officials for different fraudulent purposes. While granting the conditional bail to the duo, the Single Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik observed –
“…the Court finds that substantial part of investigation to be over since the preliminary chargesheet is filed in the meantime. The petitioners are local residents and are involved in running business with companies located in the State and outside, hence, there is a remote chance of tampering with the evidence…It is not that the petitioners have so much of clout and status to influence the investigation and therefore, if released, might tamper with evidence.”
Case Title: BRP v. SP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 51
The Orissa High Court granted divorce to a couple on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, further observing that the couple have indulged in levelling bitter allegations against each other portraying hatred and a complete breakdown of marriage for more than last one decade. Highlighting severe marital dissensions between the husband and wife, the Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash noted –
“…during last 12 years no effort has been made by either party for restitution of conjugal rights. So, in the circumstances keeping in view the fact as noted above, coupled with the allegations leveled against each other embedded with hatredness we find to be a case of complete breakdown of marriage for last one decade and as such we feel it appropriate to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage on the ground of desertion U/s. 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
However, having consideration for the income of the husband, standard of living of both the parties as well as financial security of the wife, the Court granted a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs as permanent alimony to the wife.
Case Title: Gourav Kumar Hota v. Ajay Kumar Barik
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 52
The High Court reiterated that the Executive Director of a company is not vicariously liable and cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act') for dishonour of cheque, issued by him in his official capacity on behalf of the company, if the company itself is not arraigned as an accused. Highlighting the non-compliance of the statutory mandate of Section 141 of the NI Act, the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held –
“In the present case, the accused, an Executive Director, had signed the cheque in question. The prosecution, however, was instituted solely against him, without impleading the company. This raises a substantial legal infirmity. The accused was not the drawer of the cheque in his personal capacity, but rather as an agent of the corporate entity.”
Case Title: Duryodhan Sahoo v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 53
The High Court held that if a matter comes before a Court for adjudication which does not have jurisdiction to hear and dispose the same, it must submit the case to the jurisdictional Court for appropriate action, instead of dismissing it on technical ground of lack of jurisdiction. While remitting a case, filed under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ('BNSS'), back to the jurisdictional Court subsequent to its dismissal by the non-jurisdictional Court on technical ground, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –
“It is to be understood that the Courts are meant for the litigants to remedy their grievance and we owe our existence to this Institution “popularly referred as Courts” and, therefore, if the litigants approach the Court to get their grievance remedied, it should be the duty of the Court to decide or deal with the grievance of the litigants notwithstanding the litigation has merit or not…The moral of the discussion is not to throw away the grievance of the party approaching the Court on technicality at threshold, when such matter can be decided on merits.”
Case Title: ALPHARD MARITIME LTD. v. OCEAN JADE (IMO:9660750) & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 54
The High Court ordered arrest of vessels 'Ocean Jade' (IMO:9660750) and 'Ocean Morganite' (IMO:9676498) for failure on the part of its owner to execute the Memorandum of Agreements ('MoAs') by which it had agreed to sell the vessels to the plaintiff as part of a 'distressed deal'. Directing issuance of the letter of marshal, the Admiralty Judge Justice Murahari Sri Raman said –
“This Court is prima facie satisfied that the claim is maintainable in this forum of admiralty against the aforesaid defendants-vessel, i.e., OCEAN JADE (IMO:9660750) and OCEAN MORGANITE (IMO:9676498). Unless the said two vessels are arrested, irreparable damage may ensue, thereby this Court is persuaded that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the plaintiff.”
Case Title: Sadananda Naik v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 55
The Orissa High Court reiterated that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to writ petitions, however, the principles governing the law of limitation holds some ground even in adjudication of petitions under Article 226 and thus, a party who is guilty of laches cannot be granted relief. While refusing to condone a delay of nineteen years in filing the writ petition, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho held –
“Although the Limitation Act is not strictly applicable to a writ petition, but the principles apply. It is also the settled principle of law that delay defeats equity. While exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be kept in mind by the High Court as a party who is guilty of delay and laches cannot be granted any relief.”
Case Title: MS v. RS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 56
The Orissa High Court granted divorce to a couple on the ground of cruelty while noting the conduct of the wife in filing numerous frivolous criminal cases against the husband, attempting to oust his elderly parents from her matrimonial home and repeatedly threatening to commit suicide, which caused grave emotional and psychological distress to the husband. The Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash remarked that repeated threats given by wife to commit suicide is indeed a form of cruelty and held –
“Repeated threats to commit suicide, or worse, to harm the spouse and their family members, transcend mere emotional outbursts, they represent a gross misuse of emotional vulnerability and a blatant form of psychological warfare. The effect of such behaviour is not just confined to the four walls of the matrimonial home but leaves a lasting scar on the mental health and emotional stability of the aggrieved spouse.”
While dissolving the marriage, the Court upheld the order of permanent alimony of Rs. 63 lakhs granted by the Family Court in favour of the wife, which was determined by taking into account the societal, educational and financial backgrounds of both the parties.
Case Title: Deepak Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 57
The Orissa High Court reiterated that criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings can go on simultaneously against a delinquent employee and there is no need to keep the disciplinary actions in standby until the conclusion of the criminal trial. While ingeminating the position of law, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho held –
"There are no inflexible rules, in which the departmental proceedings may be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the Delinquent Officer, but, mainly what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would definitely prejudice the defence of the delinquent employee at a time in a criminal case, if the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. If it is so, the stay of the disciplinary proceedings may be a possible course."
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 58
The High Court reiterated that the provisions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act ('NDPS Act') do not mandate indefinite retention of seized vehicles without any justifiable cause, especially when such retention tends to cause degradation and depreciation of the vehicle. Underlining the importance of interim release of vehicle for preventing structural and economic corrosion, the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed –
“The law does not sanction the indefinite retention of property where its custody ceases to advance the cause of justice. Rather, the established legal principle dictates that seized property should be preserved and safeguarded, not subjected to unnecessary deterioration and waste.”
Case Title: M/s. Andhavarapu Power Projects (P) Limited, Andhra Pradesh v. Odisha Renewable Development Agency, Khurda
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 59
The Orissa High Court held that Court cannot appoint an arbitrator to resolve dispute between the parties in absence of any arbitration agreement. The Single Bench of Acting Chief Justice Arindam Sinha (as the Judge then was) referred to Section 11(6-A) (appointment of arbitrators) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to hold that –
“Reference to arbitration can only be compelled when there is existence of an arbitration agreement…On application to Court for appointment of arbitrator, existence of arbitration agreement is to be looked into.”
Case Title: State of Odisha v. PKD & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 60
The Orissa High Court upheld a two-decade-old order passed by the Court of Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar whereby it had acquitted two persons accused of committing rape and murder of a minor girl in the year 2003. The Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash discarded the evidence of the sniffer dog which pointed at the shop of one of the accused, following a scent trail. It reasoned –
“...since the dog cannot testify in court, its handler must provide evidence regarding the dog's behaviour. This introduces a layer of hearsay, as the handler is merely interpreting the dog's reactions rather than providing direct evidence. The dog is a mere “tracking instrument” rather than a witness, with the handler reporting the dog's behaviour. The police dog evidence, in the instant case, is unreliable in the absence of corroboration.”
Case Title: Smt. Sandhya Rani Sahoo @ Mohanty v. Smt. Anusaya Mohanty
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 61
The Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held that children born out of second/void marriage are also entitled to inherit not only the self-acquired but also the ancestral properties of their father since Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('HMA') confers legitimacy on children born out of void marriage and the Hindu Successions Act, 1956 ('HSA') gives right to legitimised children to inherit self-acquired properties of parents as Class-I heirs.
Case Title: Niharkanti Mishra v. Nihar Ranjan Patnaik & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 62
The High Court reiterated that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for mere 'non-existence' of cause of action, rather it can be rejected for 'non-disclosure' of the same. Reaffirming the settled principle of law, the Single Bench of Justice Ananda Chandra Behera observed –
“So, non-disclosure of cause of action in a plaint would fall within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint, but, whereas, non-existence of cause of action would not fall within the ambit of Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of plaint.”
Case Title: Debabrata Debadarsan Palei v. Subhakanti Patra & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 63
The Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held that since Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the HMA') bars presentation of petition for divorce within one year of marriage, the petitioner must file a separate application canvassing 'exceptional hardship' or 'exceptional depravity' by the respondent, in order to waive the mandatory waiting period of one year as per the proviso to Section 14(1).
Case Title: Daktar Bhoi v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 64
The Orissa High Court ruled that a dying declaration need not be addressed to a particular person and even the deceased yelling in pain, disclosing name of the murderer, can also be accepted as a valid dying declaration, if Court is satisfied about the voluntariness as well as veracity of the declaration. While upholding the conviction of a man for murder of his brother, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho further held–
“The dying declaration is a substantive evidence only for the reason that a person in acute agony is not expected to tell a lie and in all probability, it is expected from such person to disclose the truth and an order of conviction can be safely recorded on the basis of dying declaration, if the Court is fully satisfied that the declaration made by the deceased was voluntary, true and reliable and in such case, no further corroboration can be insisted.”
Case Title: Lakshman Srinivasan v. Republic of India (CBI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 65
The Orissa High Court issued a set of detailed guidelines for interim release or disposal of properties, seized in connection with criminal cases, pending investigation/inquiry/trial. All the District/Sub-ordinate Courts and investigating agencies have been directed to comply with the said guidelines for disposal of property, unless retention thereof is essential for the purpose of investigation. The Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra was in seisin over a revision petition challenging a rejection order which rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 451 read with Section 457 of CrPC to release seized currency notes in his custody pending the trial.
Case Title: Antaryami Mishra v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 66
The Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on a man named Antaryami Mishra who had stated to be a doctor by profession and an Odia litterateur, for not only claiming his entitlement to the country's fourth highest civilian honour–'Padma Shri' but also disputing conferment of the same on a journalist having the same name.
Case Title: State of Odisha v. Sanjeeb Kerketta
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 67
The Orissa High Court set aside the extreme penalty of death imposed upon a man for rape and murder of a five-year-old girl on the ground that the Sessions Court conducted the trial in a 'perfunctory' and 'mechanical' manner without even ensuring proper legal representation to the accused, and denying adequate opportunity to put forward mitigating circumstances. While remanding the case back to the trial Court for de novo/fresh trial from the stage of framing of charges, the Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held –
“The right to a fair trial is not the privilege of the accused but a right that is equally essential for the prosecution and, more importantly, for society at large, to ensure that justice is both done and seen to be done. The trial Court, therefore, was under an even greater obligation to ensure that the trial proceedings were conducted with the strictest regard to fairness and due process. Regrettably, the record reflects a complete abdication of that responsibility.”
Orissa High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To IAS Manish Agarwal In PA's Suspicious Death Case
Case Title: V. Venu @ Veliseti Benu & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 68
The Orissa High Court rejected anticipatory bail to Manish Agarwal, IAS & former Collector of Malkangiri district and some of his staff, in a case relating to the suspicious death of his Personal Assistant (PA) in the year 2019. While denying relief to the senior bureaucrat, the Bench of Justice V. Narasingh observed –
“…taking into account the nature of allegations and keeping in view that order taking cognizance for offence under Section 306 of IPC stood the scrutiny of the Apex Court, this Court does not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners to grant the exceptional remedy of anticipatory bail…”
Lawyers Running Individual Practice Exempt From Levy Of GST, Service Tax: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Shivananda Ray v. Principal Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 69
The Orissa High Court reminded the GST and Service tax authorities not to harass practicing lawyers by issuing them notices for levy of GST or service tax. The Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice BP Routray thus quashed the notices issued to a Bhubaneswar based lawyer demanding service tax of Rs.2,14,600/- and penalty of Rs.2,34,600/- along with interest.
Case Title: Malaya Ranjan Dash v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 70
In a major relief to a former Registrar General, the Orissa High Court exonerated him from all disciplinary actions taken against him by the administrative side of the Court for allegedly registering a suo moto writ petition, purportedly being directed by a Division Bench of the Court, without the approval of the then Chief Justice. While setting aside all the charges levelled against the fourth senior-most judicial officer of the State, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed –
“We are of the humble view that even if the action taken by the petitioner in approving the note sheet can be stated to be an error but to err is human. Making mistakes is a natural and expected part of being human and cannot be termed as gross misconduct, when there is no violation of definite Rule/Law/Procedure and there was nothing to gain by the petitioner by putting his career at risk at the displeasure of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.”
Case Title: Malaya Ranjan Dash v. Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 71
The Orissa High Court called upon superior judicial authorities to desist from passing strictures, derogatory remarks or scathing criticism against judicial officers without affording an opportunity of hearing to them. The Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, while quashing an adverse entry from the Confidential Character Roll (CCR) of a former Registrar General of the High Court, made the following observations –
“The Superior Authority should ordinarily refrain from passing strictures, derogatory remarks and scathing criticism. Passing of such remarks/comments without affording a hearing to the subordinate officer is clearly violative of the principle of natural justice and thus, we are of the view that serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.”
'No One More Suited Than Her': Orissa High Court Appoints Wife As Legal Guardian Of Comatose Husband
Case Title: Epari Sushma v. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 72
Filling a legislative void by judicial intervention, the Orissa High Court appointed the wife of a person lying in 'comatose'/ 'vegetative state' to manage his personal, financial, legal, medical and business matters as his 'legal guardian'. Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi not only called attention to the vacuum in the existing statutory regime regarding appointment of guardian of people in vegetative state but also emphasised the role of a wife in managing the personal and financial affairs of her husband.
Case Title: Hamid Sha v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 73
The Orissa High Court held that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ('POCSO Act') cannot be used as a tool for enforcing outdated moral codes or to criminalise adolescent romantic relationships in order to deter “socially non-conforming behaviour” irrespective of it being consensual in nature. The Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi accentuated the need for differentiation between genuine cases of victimisation and instances of consensual romantic relationship between close-aged adolescents.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 74
While upholding a father's visitation rights, the Orissa High Court underscored a child of tender age requires love and affection of both of his parents, and cannot be treated as an 'inanimate object' to satisfy the egos and acrimonies between his parents. It also reiterated that the visitation right of either of the parents can only be decided considering the welfare of the child and not on the basis of individual views of his parents. Justice Gourishankar Satapathy in his order also highlighted that the children are the worst sufferer in spousal litigations and custody battles and observed –
“The child is not an inanimate object which can be tossed from one parent to other. This Court is of the considered opinion that excepting the extreme circumstance, one parent should not be denied to contact or visit his/her child and the cogent reasons must be assigned while refusing visitation right of either of the spouses to their child.”
Case Title: Ramakrushna Nayak v. Manoj Kumar Behera & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 75
The Orissa High Court clarified that the report submitted by a Pleader Commissioner, appointed under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), cannot be treated as evidence while deciding a suit, and utility of such report is confined to the limited purpose of inspection, preservation or detention of a suit property. While upholding an order of appointment of Pleader Commissioner for inspection of suit property, the Single Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik held –
“It is at the cost of repetition observed that the report of the Pleader Commissioner is, though, necessary to take a decision, while dealing with the I.A. filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and for opposing construction over the suit land by the opposite parties but is to be utilized for the limited purpose as proposed and not beyond.”
Case Title: X v. Y.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 76
The Orissa High Court held that a wife ridiculing and passing disparaging comments about physical disability/infirmity of her husband and using derogatory words over his condition like 'Nikhatu' or 'Kempa' is a form of mental cruelty, which is a sufficient ground for grant of divorce. While upholding the decree of divorce passed by the Family Court, the Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed –
“A person is expected to give respect to another person in general and where it comes to relationship of Husband and Wife, it is expected that the Wife should support the Husband despite his physical infirmity, if any. Here it is a case where the Wife made aspersions to Husband towards his physical infirmity and passed comments regarding the same. This definitely in our opinion amounts to mental cruelty leading to draw an inference against the Wife that she treated her Husband with cruelty owing to his physical deformity.”
Case Title: Pramod Kumar Singh v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 77
The Orissa High Court held that merely mentioning a wrong sub-section in the charge-sheet will not render an entire investigation a nullity/illegal. While deciding the effect of such trivial error on the criminal proceedings, Justice Savitri Ratho held –
“In view of Section 193(9) of the BNSS, merely because a wrong sub section has been mentioned in the charge sheet i.e. Subsection 193(8) instead of Section 193(9), it will not render the investigation illegal or non-est.”
Case Title: State of Odisha v. Prakash Behera & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 78
The High Court expressed concern over trial Court recording conviction, holding hearing on the question of sentence and ultimately, imposing the extreme sentence of death on a single day, without affording any 'meaningful opportunity' to the accused to present relevant mitigating circumstances in his favour. While allowing two death-row convicts to highlight 'mitigating factors' in their favour through affidavits at the appellate stage, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed –
“Law is well settled that hearing on the question of sentence has to be real and effective and not a mere formality; if a meaningful hearing is not taken up by a Court while considering the sentence to be imposed and inflicted upon the convict, it is likely to cause severe prejudice to him.”
Case Title: Dibakar Patra v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 79
The Orissa High Court came to the rescue of a Schedule Caste (SC) Court employee who was permanently debarred from government service as he applied for the post of Civil Judge and was selected in the Odisha Judicial Service (OJS) without obtaining a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from his then employer. A fault was found with the impugned order since no specific reason was assigned as to why a 'permanent debarment order' was passed. The Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo observed –
“The authority who makes an order in exercise of statutory power cannot say that the reasons are available in the file that is not indicated in the order itself. In a constitutionally ordained Welfare State a citizen cannot be told that the reasons for a decision are stacked in the Godown of the Government. After all, ours is not the East India Company of bygone era. The Government has to conduct itself as a model employer vide Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234.”
Case Title: Bishnupada Sethi & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), New Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 80
The Orissa High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Bishnupada Sethi, a senior IAS officer, seeking to quash the ongoing CBI investigation against him relating to a corruption case. The Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi rebuked the senior administrator for trying to circumvent the regular procedures of law, and observed –
“What is troubling is the unmistakable impression that the petitioner believes his administrative standing entitles him to bypass the ordinary route. Courts do not, and must not, create separate lanes for those in high office who feel inconvenienced by being subject to the same law as everyone else.”
Case Title: X v. State of Orissa & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 81
The Orissa High Court set aside departmental action, including suspension and imposition of black-marks, against a police Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) who was accused of committing unnatural anal intercourse with a subordinate Home Guard against his will at the workplace. Giving relief to the cop, Justice V. Narasingh in his order observed –
“In view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Navtej Singh Johar (Supra) and taking into account the compromise inter se between the parties since the same is voluntary and there is nothing on record to indicate that such consent was impelled on account of by any external factors or was outcome of any duress or coercion, as rules no longer qualifies as an offence in view of the judgment of the Apex court in the Case of Navtej Singh Johar (Supra) this Court is not persuaded to accede to the submission of the learned counsel for the State…”
Case Title: Kumarpur Sasan Juba Gosti Kendra & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 82
In a strong judicial retaliation against unlawful 'bulldozer action', the Orissa High Court ordered the State to pay rupees ten lakhs compensation, out of which rupees two lakhs are to be recovered from the salary of the concerned Tahasildar, for illegally demolishing a structure belonging to a community centre. Reprimanding the executive excess in clear derogation of judicial orders, Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi gave flea in the ear of the Tahasildar through the following observation –
“This Court takes serious note of the conduct of the Tahasildar, whose actions in this case reflect a steady and conscious departure from the standards expected of a responsible public officer. When judicial directions were first issued, there was an opportunity to act with restraint and deference to the process of law… It was a deliberate act taken while judicial consideration was still underway.”
Case Title: M/s Odisha Mining Corporation Limited Versus Union of India, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 83
The Bench of Justice Krushna Ram Mohapatra held that once the MSME Council initiates arbitration following the termination of conciliation proceedings, any order passed by the Council regarding its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute can only be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The aggrieved party cannot invoke Article 227 of the Constitution to seek setting aside of an award passed under the MSMED Act.
Denying Maternity Benefits To Contractual Employee 'Abhorrent' To Womanhood: Orissa High Court
Case Title: State of Odisha & Anr. v. Smt. Anindita Mishra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 84
The Orissa High Court held that a woman employee cannot be denied maternity leave/benefits merely on the basis of nature of her appointment being contractual. It was stressed that any such denial shall be 'abhorrent' to the very notions of humanity and womanhood. While dismissing a writ appeal against the judgment of a Single Bench, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo further observed –
“Denying maternity benefit on the basis of nature of employment is abhorrent to the notions of humanity and womanhood. Our Smrutikaaraas chanted “yatr naaryaastu pujyante ramante tatr devatah”, literally meaning that Gods rejoice where women are honoured. Such ideal things should animate the purposive interpretation of State Policy concerning the welfare of women.”
Reconstituted GSTAT Selection Committee Has Power To Restart Process Afresh: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Pranaya Kishore Harichandan v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 85
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman held that the reconstituted GSTAT (Central Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal) selection committee has the authority to restart the entire appointment process.
“...Mere offering the candidature in a public employment does not create indefeasible or inchoate right into the appointment. Even a person, whose name is included in the select list, cannot claim a vested right on appointment. It is within the prerogative of the Committee or the Appointing Authorities to appoint a person to a post subject to the fulfillment of the various criteria envisaged in the statutory provisions.”
Arbitrary Disciplinary Proceedings By SBI, Termination Held Invalid, Orissa HC Awards Compensation
Case Title: State Bank of India v. Rama Krishna Behera & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 86
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice K.R. Mohapatra held that disciplinary action notwithstanding scrutiny on fairness and procedural compliance is arbitrary, and in cases of superannuation of workman, monetary compensation may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement. Accordingly, it was directed by the Court that the Management shall pay ₹5,00,000 to the Workman as a lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and 50% of back wages within a period of two months.
Case Title: Bidyabharati Panda v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 87
The Orissa High Court held that a Magistrate, even after taking cognizance for certain offences on the basis of charge-sheet filed by investigating agency, is not barred from taking cognizance again for some other serious offences, if prima facie case is established by means of sufficient materials. Clarifying the position of law regarding validity of a second cognizance, the Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held –
“...the law is well-settled that a Magistrate is not precluded from taking cognizance on a complaint even after accepting a final report, provided there is prima facie material to support the allegations. The Supreme Court's pronouncement in Zunaid v. State of U.P. (supra) clearly establishes this principle, and the mere fact that an earlier cognizance was taken under different sections does not automatically bar subsequent cognizance under more serious provisions if supported by material.”
DRDO Espionage Case: Orissa High Court Grants Bail To Accused After Almost Four Years In Jail
Case Title: Basanta Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 88
The High Court granted bail to a man, accused of sharing classified information relating to missile testing at Integrated Test Range (ITR) with foreign nationals, on the ground of prolonged pre-trial detention. While giving relief to the petitioner, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –
“Although an accused is charged with an offence, but he is not a convict until conclusion of the trial, since the accused has valuable far-reaching rights under criminal jurisprudence to be presumed innocent, until proven guilty and this right cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be.”
It was further reiterated that irrespective of the gravity of the offence alleged, an accused possesses the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Also, it is the duty of the State to conduct the trial with reasonable promptitude, and speedy trial is to be granted to every accused whether or not it is demanded by him/her.
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Pranabananda Dash
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 89
The Orissa High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging grant of capitalised value of disability pension/compensation to a retired postal employee who lost his limbs and suffered 75% disability due to a parcel bomb blast while on duty. While expressing disinclination to entertain the writ petition, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held that the government authorities should not have felt aggrieved to grant the amount since it was a “paltry sum” of compensation. It further said –
“Moreover, since lump sum compensation amount claimed by the opposite party is not exorbitant, interference by this Court is not desired, particularly when the opposite party had received injury while on duty on 03.01.2002 and was continuously under treatment in different hospitals for years together and there was fixation of his artificial limbs. Thus, we find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.”
Case Title: Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 90
In a huge relief to a former senior Judicial Officer, the Court set aside an order passed by the Government prematurely/compulsorily retiring him at the age of 55, instead of normal age of superannuation, i.e. 60. A Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo found the impugned order to be punitive and stigmatic, which was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the officer. It underlined that premature removal is an exceptional step which should not be adopted in a whimsical manner.
“It hardly needs to be stated that cutting short tenure of public office is a serious matter; such decisions have to be consistent with the intent of Makers of the Constitution as lurking in Article 16. Though right to public employment is not guaranteed, once a citizen is duly employed, he cannot be whimsically removed. Therefore, the power to prematurely retire is in the nature of an exception and the sine qua non for exercising such power has to be strictly complied with.”
Also Read: "Judicial Functions Have Become Sensitive Because Of Unregulated Social Media": Orissa High Court
Case Title: CP & Ors. v. JD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 91
The High Court asked the parties in a matrimonial dispute to appear before the trial Courts through virtual mode instead of seeking transfer of cases from one territorial jurisdiction to another. Turning down the request of a husband to transfer cases from the place of residence of his wife, the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra observed –
“...this Court is of the view that interest of justice will be best served, if the parties, who are either stationed or serving at different places, are permitted to appear through virtual mode before the concerned Courts.”
Case Title: VKB v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 92
In a strongly-worded order, the Orissa High Court criticised a man for filing a frivolous habeas corpus plea to secure the custody of his wife and child, knowing well that the wife had left his company out of her own volition due to some matrimonial disputes. To discourage such vexatious litigation in the future, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman imposed rupees twenty five thousand as costs on the petitioner and observed –
“The husband cannot compel the wife to act as per his dictum nor can he treat the wife as his commodity. The fundamental right which is conferred upon every individual irrespective of the gender cannot be treated as one way traffic by a particular gender. The wife has a right to take an independent decision of her life and if she has chosen to dissociate her company from the husband, the husband cannot be permitted to abuse or misuse the power of the Court in issuing the writ of habeas corpus.”
Orissa High Court Orders ₹1.5 Lakh Compensation To Kin Of Two Labourers Killed In Landslide In 2013
Case Title: Rasana Mallick & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors. | Surama Jani & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 93
The Orissa High Court ordered the State to pay compensation amount of rupees one lakh and fifty thousand to the kin of two labourers who died in the year 2013 due to a landslide in the aftermath of a heavy rain in the district of Nayagarh. The Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra rejected the plea taken by the State that the amount of rainfall was less than what is prescribed under the Odisha Relief Code, thus making the petitioners ineligible for any ex-gratia relief. It further observed –
“Indisputably, the death had occurred due to land slide. Having such a condition as a yardstick to grant compensation is highly arbitrary and unreasonable. Under the constitutional scheme, the State being a welfare state is required to act rationally and the policies are required to be reasonable. Viewed from the aforesaid constitutional perspective it can't be accepted that the decision in rejecting the prayer for grant of ex-gratia compensation is a reasonable one and in larger public interest.”
Case Title: Dr. Randall Sequeira v. Collector and District Magistrate, Rayagada & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 94
In a sharp rebuke to executive overreach, the Orissa High Court quashed an order of the District Magistrate prohibiting Dr. Randall Sequeira, a medical professional and social worker, from entering Rayagada district for two months ahead of his proposed peaceful anti-mining protest. A Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi termed the order issued under Section 163(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita as "disproportionate, arbitrary and unconstitutional", stating that the constitutional protection of dissent is not "a mere idealistic slogan" but an essential democratic right. Further, stressing that treating lawful protest as a security threat signals not the protection of order, but a "breakdown of democratic confidence", the single judge further remarked thus:
"A government confident in its legitimacy and support of law will engage with protesters, not banish them. The constitutional protection of dissent is not a mere idealistic slogan; it has been acknowledged by courts as essential to the democratic fabric of the nation".
Case Title: State of Odisha v. Prakash Behera @ Babuli & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 95
The Orissa High Court acquitted two persons who were convicted by the trial Court for committing murder of three members of a family in 2017, including a minor boy, by fatally slitting their throats. While setting aside not only the death penalty but the entire conviction in toto, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra termed the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge as a “sheer moral conviction” and further observed –
“The reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellants seems to be based on conjecture and suspicion which has got no place in the matter of legal proof of guilt of accused persons in a criminal trial and we are of the view that the impugned verdict is nothing but a sheer moral conviction. Thus we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.”
Case Title: Lal Baba Dargah (Mazahar) v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 96
The Orissa High Court upheld an eviction order passed against a sanitation facility belonging to a Dargah on the ground that it was built upon a public land and has been in illegal existence for over four decades. The Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held that unauthorised use of public premises cannot be passed off as legal action merely because it serves public purpose.
“With regard to the plea based on long-standing structures and assertions of public utility, it must be noted that no amount of well-intentioned justification can override the statutory restrictions governing the occupation of Government land. Unauthorised use of public premises, even if purported to serve a public purpose, cannot be legitimised unless regularised in accordance with law.”
Case Title: Dhiman Chakma v. State of Odisha (Vig.)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 97
The Orissa High Court granted bail to suspended Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Dhiman Chakma in a case relating to demand and receipt of bribe to the tune of rupees ten lakh while working as the Sub-Collector of Dharmagarh in the district of Kalahandi. The Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy remarked that the trial in the case is not likely to be completed soon and also observed –
“Be that as it may, the petitioner is a public servant and one of the factor which is relevant for the purpose of bail is the securing his attendance at the trial and such factor can be looked at by taking into consideration the status of the petitioner and his roots in the society which also includes his service in Government Department.”
Case Title: Chintan Raghuvanshi & Anr. v. Republic of India (CBI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 98
The Orissa High Court granted bail to Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer and Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate (ED) Chintan Raghuvanshi who is accused of demanding bribe in return of giving relief to an accused (complainant here) in an enforcement case. While granting the bail, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy gave due consideration to the fact that the petitioner did not misuse his liberty while he was out on interim bail, coupled with the fact that there is bleak possibility of trial being conducted in near future.
Case Title: Bishnupada Sethi v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 99
The High Court rejected the pre-arrest bail plea of senior Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Bishnupada Sethi in an alleged bribery case which is currently being investigated by the CBI. While expressing disinclination to grant relief to the bureaucrat, the Bench of Justice V. Narasingh notably held –
“It is often said that power of corruption is like a shadow, it follows those who wield power. The Petitioner undoubtedly has the power being a senior official of the Indian Administrative Service. On a conspectus of materials on record, whether corruption is his shadow merits probe unhindered and unimpeded by the exceptional remedy of pre-arrest bail.”
Case Title: Smt. Umamani Nayak & Ors. v. CEO, TPNODL, Balasore & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 100
More than 18 years after a daily labourer succumbed to electrocution by stepping onto a live electric wire due to negligence of the power distribution company, the Orissa High Court has ordered an interim compensation of rupees two lakhs to the wife and sons of the deceased. The Single Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra held the company strictly liable for the unfortunate and avoidable death of the sole breadwinner of the family. He also observed –
“Distribution company had the statutory responsibility of distribution and supply of electricity in the locality, the court is of the considered view that by application of the principle of strict liability, the Opposite Parties- Distribution Company are strictly liable for the death of deceased and are liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners.”
Case Title: Sangram Keshari Routray v. Hexagon Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 101
While adjudicating a case relating to cheque bounce, the Orissa High Court reiterated that a Magistrate, who does not have power to take cognizance for an offence for the want of territorial jurisdiction, must endorse and return the complaint for presentation before the jurisdictional Court. Elucidating the requirement under Section 224 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra also observed –
“Section 224 of the BNSS mandates, if a complaint is made to a Magistrate, who is not competent to take cognizance of an offence, he shall, if the complaint is in writing, return it for prosecution before the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect.”
Case Title: Hari Shankar Patnaik v. State of Orissa & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 102
The Orissa High Court reiterated that omission to file an affidavit supporting the contents of a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is a fatal procedural defect which goes to the root of the matter and renders the very initiation of criminal action based on such complaint a nullity. While setting aside the orders of two lower Courts, which denied to discharge the petitioner on account of the aforesaid procedural lapse, the Bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash held –
“The affidavit acts as a self-certifying threshold, discouraging frivolous or mala fide applications and making the complainant personally answerable for the truth of the allegations made. This safeguard is not only in the interest of judicial discipline, but equally if not more in the interest of the accused, who otherwise could be dragged into the rigours of a criminal trial on the basis of unverified, and potentially vexatious, allegations.”
Case Title: Jati @ Susanta Rout & Anr. v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 103
The Orissa High Court reiterated that failure on the part of police/investigation agency to produce an accused before Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest shall vitiate the arrest itself, as it violates the safeguards enshrined under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). While enlarging two accused persons on bail, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy also held that such omission enures to the benefit of the accused, who must be released forthwith on bail. In the words of the Court –
“For the purpose of criminal case, the Petitioners being not produced beyond 24 hours, their detention can be considered illegal for violation of provision of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India r/w Sec. 58 of BNSS and, therefore, the arrest of the Petitioners are violative of the Constitutional mandate.”
Case Title: Chandia @ Chandi Sethy & Ors. v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 104
The Orissa High Court held that it is not mandatory on the part of the prosecution to examine the Scientific Officer/Expert as a witness in order to prove the chemical examination report. In other words, a forensic report or chemical examination report does not lose probity merely on the ground of non-examination of its maker, which can otherwise be held as admissible evidence. While hearing an appeal preferred by six convicts against a double-murder conviction, the Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed –
“…as per provisions contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 293 of Cr.P.C., it is not obligatory that an expert, who furnishes opinion on the scientific issue of the chemical examination of substance should be of necessity made to depose in proceedings before the Court.”
Case Title: Dwaru Patra v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 105
A Bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash has reiterated that a writ petition seeking issuance of the writ of mandamus to the police for registration a First Information Report (FIR) is not maintainable unless the grievance regarding non-registration of FIR is raised before the jurisdictional Magistrate by means of a complaint.
Case Title: Nirmala Sahu v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 106
The High Court reiterated that a lessee is the true owner of a structure that he builds over a leased land, and therefore, the ownership over the same cannot be claimed by the lessor who is undoubtedly owner of the leased land. While adjudicating a dispute relating to a mobile tower built over a leased land, Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad ingeminated the following settled principle of law –
“It has been the long settled position of law that lessor continues to be the owner of the plot, whereas lessee becomes the owner of the structure which he has built under the lease in question by virtue of doctrine of dual ownership.”
Case Title: State of Odisha v. Niranjan Mallik & tagged appeal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 107
The Orissa High Court commuted the sentence of death imposed by the Sessions Court on a man for not only committing murder of two random people at two different places, but also causing grievous hurt to two other people, and attempting to murder a pregnant lady by stabbing her repeatedly and inserting a 'pastry-roller' inside her private part which ultimately caused death of the foetus. While commuting the capital punishment, the Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed –
“Nothing on his conduct as per the report of the jail authority would constitute an aggravating factor against him to confirm the death sentence. Regardless of the heinous of crime committed by him, his conduct inside jail is quite satisfactory as per the report of the Superintendent of Jail and he had also no other antecedent than the present one to be counted against him to justify his death sentence. He was and is a normal man except committing the offence prior to and after the occurrence.”
Apart from the aforesaid, the Court also recorded the following peculiar findings of the Jail Superintendent to fortify the mitigating factors in his favour –
“So in the opinion of the Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail, Berhampur the convict's behavior is quite normal. He prays to God and reads Holy Gita regularly and other daily newspapers and his behavior towards others is very normal.”
Case Title: Lokanath Behera v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 108
“The Government should celebrate citizen's victory against it, secured in due process of law,” the Orissa High Court remarked while directing the state government to grant equal pay scale to a Lecturer of government-aided private institution, at par with pay scale of corresponding class of employees of government institutions. Discarding the apprehension raised by the government that allowing such prayer may open floodgates of litigation, the Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad said –
“Even the argument of 'opening of floodgates of litigations' is not acceptable. Our system operates on the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium. Rule of law requires State to abide by law, more particularly while treating the worthy claims of its employees. It was Marcus Tullius Cicero, who reiterated “law should be obeyed even if heavens fall down”. It is open to the State to pre-empt the opening of floodgates of litigations by extending the benefit of the policy on its own without avoidably driving other similarly circumstanced employees to litigation process.”
Case Title: Registrar (Judicial), Orissa High Court, Cuttack v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 109
The Orissa High Court imposed restrictions on erection of huge bamboo structures/pandals on public road, footpath, and installation of electric gates during the festive season starting from Lord Ganesh Puja next. It also asked the administration to ensure checks on noise pollution during the festivities.
“Increased height in Puja gates is also an issue which causes many concerns, inter alia, regarding the structural stability and safety, since these are temporary structures built for festivals. It has inherent vulnerability to wind, resulting in enhanced risk or injury if there is collapse and also presenting challenges for crowd control and emergency egress,” it observed.
Case Title: Prajnya Parimita Barik v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 110
In a major relief to a female aspirant with physical disability (PwD), the High Court ordered the State to appoint her as 'Sikshya Sahayak'/teacher more than a decade after her application for selection to the post was wrongly rejected. Acknowledging her long fight for justice, the Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad remarked –
“Petitioner was before this Court twice earlier and before the authorities thrice. She has been a relentless fighter for justice. The time spent in the legal battles fought one after another, cannot be a ground for denying relief to the victorious party. Fruits of successful litigation, howsoever long the same be fought, ordinarily should reach the hands of winner party. Otherwise faith of right thinking section of people would be shaken and that would not augur well to the rule of law.”
Case Title: Dinabandhu Dehury & Ors. v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 111
The Orissa High Court altered the murder conviction of six persons under Section 302, IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II, IPC for causing death by fatal assault of a man, who registered protest against misbehaviour meted out by one of the accused to his daughter. Ruling out intention on the part of the appellants for causing murder, Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash remarked–
“A trivial incident of passing lewd comments to a girl during video show in the village followed by protest by the family members of the girl escalated into an uncalled for tragic scenario of murder of girl's father. Glaring examples are there in scripture when the game of dice and subsequent humiliation of Draupadi stood out as a pivotal incident that irrevocably set stage for Kurukshetra War.”
Case Title: Jayanta Kumar Das v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 112
In an important ruling, the Orissa High Court clarified that the Crime Investigation Department, Crime Branch (Cyber Crime) ('CID-CB') is not the only investigating body empowered to probe cyber/IT related offences, rather the local police stations can also investigate such offences subject to the condition that the Investigating Officer (IO) is not below the rank of 'Inspector'. Interpreting the interplay between multiples government notifications alongside Section 78 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ('the IT Act'), which provides that a police officer not below the rank of Inspector shall investigate any offence under the Act, the single bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash held –
“The statutory scheme, the Government Notifications of 2004, 2017 and 2021, and the clarifications from CID, CB Cyber P.S., all point towards a harmonious interpretation that while CID Cyber P.S. retains concurrent jurisdiction across the State, local police stations headed by Inspectors are not divested of competence to investigate cyber offences. The expression 'exclusive jurisdiction' in the 2017 Notification cannot be read so as to obliterate the concurrent jurisdiction expressly preserved in the same sentence, nor can it override the clear mandate of Section 78 of the I.T. Act.”
Case Title: Golapi Majhi v. Bhabanishankar Budulal @ Kisan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 113
The Orissa High Court recently held that forcing a party to a partition suit to undergo DNA test for ascertaining his/her parentage is unwarranted as it violates the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Highlighting the legal untenability of such request made by the rival party, the single bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray said –
“In a suit for partition, the prayer for DNA test to determine parentage of rival party is unwarranted. It is to be borne in mind that forcing a person to undergo DNA test affects his right to privacy.”
Case Title: Odisha Public Service Commission v. Biswajit Panda
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 114
A Division Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo held that Candidate with low vision disability cannot claim selection for the post of Assistant Agriculture Engineer when the disability is not identified as suitable for the post under the Government notification issued under Sections 32 & 33 of the PwD Act, 1995.
Case Title: Bishnu Charan Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 115
The Orissa High Court held that 'Amrutamanohi land' belonging to the deity Lord Jagannath cannot be settled in favour of illegal occupants/encroachers only because it is in their possession for decades and they have government identity proofs with the said land. Dismissing the challenge to eviction notice as well as rejection of representation for settlement of land, a single bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held –
“The plea of the Petitioners that possession of more than fifty years, coupled with identity documents such as Voter ID, Aadhaar Card, Ration Card and electricity bills, confers a right to settlement, is misconceived. Such documents may at best reflect residence but do not translate into legal title or authorised possession.”
Case Title: Harsha C v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 116
The Orissa High Court waived a bail condition imposed by a Sessions Court requiring the accused to furnish two sureties, one of whom must be his 'kin/relative', on the ground that putting such 'onerous' condition defeats the purpose of bail. A single bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy also held that putting such conditions which are impossible to comply is against the intention of the legislature. It also observed –
“After granting bail, imposing excessive and onerous conditions, which are impossible for compliance by the accused for his release from custody is not the spirit of law and would be considered depriving the accused of his personal liberty without the sanction of law.”
Clause 18 Of Vivad Se Vishwas-II Scheme Is Mandatory If Claim Satisfies Twin Test: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Paradip Port Trust (PPT) v. M/s Modi Project Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 117
The Orissa High Court, while hearing an appeal u/s 37 of the A&C Act, a writ Petition filed by the Respondent for directions to the Appellant to consider the offer made under appeal, observed Vivad se Vishwas II (contractual disputes) scheme (“the scheme”), observed that Clause 18 of the scheme is mandatory in nature. The Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi observed that once a contractor chooses to settle under such terms, the procuring entity cannot deny the claim without violating the legitimate expectation generated by the scheme.
Case Title: Udayanath Sahoo (Dead) represented by LRs. & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 118
“Delayed justice is egregious form of human rights violation,” the Orissa High Court remarked while imposing an exemplary cost of rupees two lakh on the State for its apathy in not executing a clear order passed by the highest Court of the land more than three decades back. Drawing curtains to almost five-decade-old “relentlessly fought legal battle”, the Single Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad observed –
“In the case at hand, nearly five decades having lapsed in the court corridors, not even a fig leaf has fallen into the pocket of Decree Holders. Delayed justice is egregious form of human rights violation. At least, as a concession to shortness of human life, litigation longevity needs to be shortened, by devising new techniques. It is high time that the stakeholders converge their ideas to achieve it.”
Highlighting lassitude coupled with authoritarian ego on the part of State functionaries, the Judge said –
“The State and its functionaries conduct themselves as model litigants. When a citizen wins a legal battle, State should rejoice it. That spirit is not seen nowadays. At times, State functionaries take ego trip. That drives the citizens to think, if State is their first enemy. This does not auger well to the good governance.”
Case Title: Md. Usman Khan v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 119
The Orissa High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the decision of the State Government to revoke/rescind the licenses issued in favour of serving teachers of government/aided schools to act as Registrars of Muslim marriages and divorces. Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad was apprehensive about feasibility on the part of such teachers to give “absolute commitment” to teaching and thus, observed –
“They [the Registrars] have to maintain and update several Registers/Books. They have to examine parties and witnesses. At times, they have to travel to other places for the discharge of their duties. Rule 49 provides for their personal appearance along with Registers/Records, if the Courts summon them. That being the position, how will they be able to discharge their duty as teachers with absolute commitment in the Government Schools, is a big question.”
Case Title: Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack & Ors. v. Malaya Ranjan Dash & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 120
The Orissa High Court dismissed a review petition against a May, 2025 judgment which exonerated a former Registrar General from disciplinary actions for registering a suo moto case without obtaining permission from the then Chief Justice. A Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra did not find any fault with the impugned judgment which had held the action of the delinquent Judicial Officer to be in good faith. In its words –
“In the absence of any Rules/regulation and/or convention or judicial precedent to the effect that before registration of Suo-motu proceeding, permission preceding the registration from the Hon'ble Chief justice is a condition precedent, no fault of the writ petitioner could be established per se.”
Case Title: Satyajit Swain v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 121
“Beneficial legislation must be given effect to in a manner that heals, not in a manner that harms,” the Orissa High Court remarked while directing the Railway Department to pay compensation to the kin of a deceased person who succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained during a train travel in the year 2006. Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi criticised the railway department for its callous response to the tragedy, which forced the bereaved family to run from “pillar to post” for securing the monetary relief to which it was lawfully entitled. In the words of the Judge –
“When a passenger dies during train travel, the first obligation of the Railways is to extend compassion and assistance to the grieving family. To compel such a family to engage in protracted litigation, amounts to abdication of this solemn responsibility. It must be remembered that the deceased passenger was not a trespasser or an interloper; he was a citizen exercising his lawful right of travel. His family, therefore, should have been shielded by the law, not exposed to its harshest rigours.”
Case Title: G. Debendra Rao v. G. Puspa Prabha Rao & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 122
The Orissa High Court observed that unless there is clear material evidence of income or actual prospects of earning, it would be 'unfair' to generalize that educated wives intentionally avoid working only to saddle their husbands with liability to pay maintenance A Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy, while dismissing a revision petition filed by a husband against a maintenance order passed against him, observed thus:
"Besides, it cannot have any universal application in all the cases that wife having high qualification is intentionally avoiding to work only to harass the husband with a intention to saddle the liability to pay maintenance to her, unless there is material evidence to that effect, inasmuch as in absence of any evidence of income and/or prospect to earn, it would be unfair to say that the wives are breeding a class of idle women to burden their husband".
Case Title: Narottam Prusty v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 123
Filling a legislative gap concerning interplay of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ('BNSS') and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ('POCSO Act') regarding limitation period for filing a 'discharge application', the Orissa High Court held that an accused under the latter enactment can prefer an application seeking discharge under Section 250(1) of the BNSS within sixty days from the date on which he is furnished with the police papers, as provided under Section 231, BNSS. Addressing the issue, which arose due to the absence of a specific 'committal provision' under the POCSO Act, the Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra held –
“…this Court is persuaded to take the considerate view that in cases before Special Courts instituted under special statutes like the POCSO Act, as in the present matter, where there is no contemplation for committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the time period of 60 days for preferring a discharge application under Section 250(1) BNSS may be so interpreted as commencing from the date of supply of documents and police papers to the accused.”
Case Title: General Manager (HR), Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others v. Ashok Kumar Giri & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 124
A Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held that when medical records from a premier government hospital clearly establish that the deceased employee suffered from cardiac and kidney ailments and died due to cardiac arrest, such death falls within the diseases specified under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme and the company cannot deny it on basis of hyper technicalities of terminology.
Case Title: Priyadarsini Das v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 125
The Orissa High Court ordered the Post Bank to allow a woman to prematurely withdraw/encash a sum of money, which she had invested in fixed deposits, in order to bear the expenses of a marriage in the family. Refuting the stance of the bank that no such premature withdrawal is permissible, the Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad was of the opinion that marriage is recognised as a traditional necessity in Hindu Law and thus, one cannot be denied her own wealth for such purpose merely because of existence of a rule to the contrary.
Case Title: Akshaya Dishri v. The Commissioner of Endowments Odisha, Bhubaneswar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 126
The Orissa High Court directed the official authorities to take positive steps to rehabilitate a hereditary Sevayat of the 16th Century Samaleswari Temple (in Balangir District), who is performing Sevapuja of Goddess Samaleswari Devi, till the completion of ongoing temple renovation work. A Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by Sebayat (Akshaya Dishri), who challenged a notice dated July 25, 2025, issued by the Sub-Collector-cum-Executive Officer, Debottar Bolangir, directing him to vacate the Bhogakuthi/Basaghara adjacent to the temple premises.
Case Title: Hemanta Nayak v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 127
The Orissa High Court came down heavily on the State Information Commission (SIC) for its apathetic and arbitrary attitude in denying/dropping a plea made under the Right to Information Act ('RTI Act') way back in 2018. While highlighting the contradictory stand taken by the Commission in order to avoid providing information, the Bench of Justice V. Narasingh observed –
“In the factual backdrop of the case at hand, this Court is constrained to observe that in rendering the impugned decision the State Information Commission allowed its finding to be entrapped in officialdom and red tapism, which are illegitimate tools to fall back, to deny response to an application under the RTI Act, 2005 and thereby render the provisions nugatory.”
Order 21 CPC | Principle Of Res Judicata Not Applicable To Execution Proceedings: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Santosh Patra v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 128
The Orissa High Court held that the principle of res judicata, as provided under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), is not applicable to execution proceedings under Order XXI of the CPC as it is a 'self-contained' and 'independent Order'. Justice Ananda Chandra Behera held that non-applicability of res judicata is a fundamental rule of civil law. In his words –
“It is very fundamental in civil law that, principles of res judicata are not applicable to the execution proceedings...Because, Order-21 of the C.P.C., 1908 containing 106 Rules in total for execution of decrees and orders is a self-contained and independent Order. For which, the principles of res judicata available in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the execution proceedings.”
Case Title: Santosh Ku. Sahoo v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 129
The High Court held that an accidental fall of a passenger from a moving train followed by he being run over by the same train or by another train, is an 'untoward incident' as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 ('the Act') which makes the Railway Department strictly liable to pay compensation for the death. While holding the Railway liable for unfortunate death of a passenger in 2017, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed –
“It is a matter of common occurrence that an accidental fall from a moving train may culminate in the passenger being run over either by the same train or by another, thereby sustaining grievous or fatal injuries. Such a subsequent development does not alter the intrinsic character of the mishap as an 'accidental fall'.”
Case Title: Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 130
The Orissa High Court acquitted a man held guilty by the trial Court for murder of his adoptive parents in the year 1996. While terming the conviction to be based on “surmise and conjecture”, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held –
“The conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellant and the reasonings assigned for arriving at such conclusion is not borne out of the record and it seems that the learned trial Court has proceeded pedantically without making an in-depth analysis of facts and circumstances and the evidences laid in the trial. In our opinion, the legal duty to separate the grain from the chaff has been abandoned by the learned trial Court and therefore, the entire approach is faulty and fallible which deserves to be rectified and upturned.”
Gratuity Can't Be Withheld To Recover Loan Default Even If Retired Employee Was Guarantor: Orissa HC
Case Title: Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Joint Labour Commissioner & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 131
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman held that gratuity cannot be withheld or forfeited to recover a loan default, even if the retired employee stood as a guarantor, unless termination occurred for misconduct provided under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Adarsh Nobel Corporation Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 132
The Orissa High Court held that objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC') cannot be allowed to be raised in the enforcement proceeding of an arbitral award, as enunciated under the provision of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('A & C Act'). While bringing clarity as to applicability of Section 47 of CPC to arbitral proceedings, a Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held –
“Allowing objections under Section 47 of the CPC, 1908 to be raised against arbitral awards would undermine the finality and binding nature of arbitration awards. It would subject arbitral awards to same procedural complexities and delays associated with court proceedings, defeating the purpose of choosing arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.”
Case Title: Syed Najam Ahmed v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 133
The Orissa High Court held that directors of a company cannot be absolved of their liability for the offence of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 merely because the company was declared insolvent and a Resolution Professional was appointed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. While determining the extent of liability of directors of an insolvent company, the Bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash held–
“In view of the above position of law, there remains no ambiguity with respect to the principle propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, namely, that the matter lying before the Resolution Professional pursuant to the order dated 08.11.2024 of the NCLT would in no manner affect the proceedings arising out of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.”
Case Title: Rasmita Nayak v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 134
The Orissa High Court asked the State Government to consider excluding the time period taken by legal heirs in obtaining a death certificate, a legal heir certificate, a distress certificate etc., from the limitation period for applying for a compassionate appointment in lieu of the death of a government employee in harness. While granting relief to a lady seeking rehabilitation assistance for the death of her father in the year 2010, the bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad observed –
“It hardly needs to be stated that these certificates cannot be applied for in contemplation of death of employee in harness. It is only after the death, the cause of action for applying these certificates would arise. It may not be irrelevant to mention that even the Limitation Act, 1963 has several provisions which provide for excluding the time taken for obtaining copies of judgments, orders & decrees while computing the period of limitation. Although, these provisions are not applicable to RA Claims, analogical wisdom can be drawn from them.”
Case Title: Registrar (Judicial), Orissa High Court, Cuttack v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 135
The Orissa High Court made it clear that no judicial fetter has been put upon the District Administration of Cuttack for holding the historic 'Bali Jatra' in the upper ground scheduled in the month of November. The Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice V. Narasingh, which was hearing a suo moto public interest litigation (PIL) relating to the civic issues of the city of Cuttack, quoted the operative portions of the previous orders to clarify that it had never put any complete ban on use of the upper ground for such purpose. It thus held –
“…it is abundantly clear that this Court has not put any fetters on the District Administration regarding use of Upper Balijatra ground in organizing the historic Balijatra, 2025. Hence, in our considered view, no permission is required from this Court for the District Administration to use some part of the Upper Balijatra Ground for organizing the Historic Balijatra.”
Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Sahoo v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 136
The Orissa High Court quashed an order passed by a Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act') which denied bail to the Principal of a Higher Secondary School for failing to report alleged sexual harassment meted out to a minor female student by a Lecturer. While setting aside the impugned order, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy expressed shock that despite the alleged offence under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act being 'bailable' in nature, the Special Judge denied bail to the petitioner and sent him to custody. Being stupefied by the order, the Court observed–
“It is strange, but true that despite making an in-depth analysis of facts and allegations raised against the petitioner, the learned trial Court has rejected the bail application of the petitioner and remanded him to custody. This Court therefore, has no other option left, but to quash the impugned order…”
Case Title: Sanjay Sharma v. Dolly @ Sakhi Sharma & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 137
The High Court set aside an order passed by a Family Court whereby the biological father was denied visitation rights to meet his son while the custody case is pending for consideration. A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra gave much emphasis to the visitation rights of parents and underlined that such rights should be determined keeping in view the best interest of the child. In the words of the Court –
“Since visitation right is an important right of either of the parents to see the children born out of their wedlock and while deciding the welfare of the child, it is not the view of one spouse alone, which has to be taken into consideration, this Court is of the view that the Court is required to decide the issue of visitation on the basis of what is in the best interest of the child.”
Case Title: Samira Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha & tagged matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 138
The Orissa High Court rejected the bail pleas of the Head of the Department ('HOD') of Teacher's Education and Principal of the Fakir Mohan Autonomous College, Balasore ('FMAC') for their alleged involvement in unfortunate death of an under-graduate female student, who set herself ablaze by pouring petrol on the college campus in July. Acknowledging the gravity of the alleged crime, the Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra held –
“This Court further observes here that although several laws have been enacted and several steps have been taken by the judiciary as well as the administrative machineries to prevent such kind of occurrences. However, this Court painstakingly notes here that all such steps have gone in vain and that the society has collectively failed to save the life of a young girl. The inaction of the college authorities would be the sole reason for the deceased taking such an extreme step.”
Case Title: Bharat Chandra Mallick v. Branch Manager, State Bank of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 139
The Orissa High Court held that a Bank has no legal authority to unilaterally deduct/debit money from the pension account of a retired employee/pensioner merely on the ground that such employee stood as guarantor in a loan which could not be repaid. While asking the Bank to refund the deducted amount to the petitioner, the Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi remarked –
“The manner in which the recovery was effected also fails basic norms of natural justice…A unilateral debit from a customer's account, especially when it consists of pension money, is an extreme step. The petitioner was entitled to at least a notice or demand, and an opportunity to be heard on why the sum was being taken.”
Case Title: Director, Land Records & Surveys Govt. of Odisha & Anr. v. Sylvesa Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 140
The Orissa High Court held that directing a 100% deposit of the awarded amount as a pre-condition for granting stay under section 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) is legally valid and consistent with the settled jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi held that “where the arbitral award is in the nature of a money decree, a direction to deposit 100% of the awarded sum is neither punitive nor excessive but serves to secure the award-holder's interest pending adjudication.”
Case Title: Sukanta Kumar Mohanty & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 141
The Orissa High Court held that a Court cannot take cognizance in the General Register case ('GR case') after accepting the closure report submitted by the police due to lack of evidence. It further clarified that if the informant files any 'protest petition' against acceptance of the final form, the same may be considered as a 'complaint' [as defined under Section 2(d) of the CrPC/ Section 2(h) of the BNSS] and fresh cognizance may be taken on the basis of that complaint case. While finding fault with a Magistrate's cognizance order in GR case while entertaining a protest petition, the Bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash shed light on the important procedural requirement in the following words –
“...the action of the learned Magistrate in adhering to the procedure under Sections 200 read with 202 Cr.P.C. while taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner in the G.R. case has to be discontinued, and the Protest Petition shall be treated as a complaint. The registration thereof be accordingly effected, and the entire exercise undertaken in the G.R. case in taking cognizance of the offences be made over to the said complaint case.”
Case Title: Charulata Beura & Anr. v. Ranjana Pradhan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 142
The Orissa High Court held that after referring a dispute to mediation, the referring Court cannot deny to accept the mediation report nor it can defy its duty to pass a decree basing upon the solution/compromise arrived at in the mediation. Setting aside the order of a Civil Court denying a decree based on mediation report, the Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed –
“As already stated, in the instant case the trial Court, on the prayer of the parties referred their dispute to mediation. This implies that the Court was of the view that the dispute could be settled through mediation as otherwise such a reference would not have been made. Having itself made the reference, this Court fails to understand as to how it was held that though the dispute was settled, no decree recording such settlement could be passed.”
Case Title: Sangram Keshari Behera v. State of Odisha & Anr. and tagged matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 143
The Orissa High Court rejected the pre-arrest bail pleas of the then District Forest Officer (DFO), Paralakhemundi and his cook for their alleged involvement in the suspicious death of Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF) Soumya Ranjan Mohapatra in July, 2021. Upon perusing the case papers, the Bench of Justice V. Narasingh did not find any merit in the anticipatory bail pleas, for which he held –
“Considering the materials on record qua the accusation vis-à-vis under Sections 302/120-B IPC, this Court does not find any merit in the submission that the present Petitioners have to be granted “exceptional remedy” of anticipatory bail.”
Case Title: G. Krutibasa Patra @ Gudla Krutibas Patra v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 144
The Orissa High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the term of imprisonment of a man in his late seventies convicted by trial Court in 1998 for outraging and insulting modesty of a scheduled caste woman by trespassing into her house. Accepting the submission on behalf of the appellant/accused regarding his reformed behaviour ever since the said incident, the Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra remarked –
“Considering the fact that the incident occurred three decades ago, and the appellant is now in his late seventies, has no other criminal involvement, and has lived a reformed and socially respectable life since then, I am inclined to take a lenient view.”
Case Title: Geeta Rath v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 145
The Orissa High Court recalled its judgment dismissing a writ petition without hearing the petitioner on the question of delay and also leaving out a material aspect during the course of hearing. In a rare gesture, Justice Sashikanta Mishra candidly admitted to have fallen prey to a 'mistake of fact' while adjudicating the writ petition and thus, observed –
“The doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit, that no one should suffer because of an act of the Court reinforces the power of review in such circumstances to ensure that procedural or factual errors committed by the Court do not result in injustice.”
Acknowledging judicial fallibility and being conscious of the pernicious effect thereof, Justice Mishra was humble enough to observe –
“The materials on record available in the writ petition clearly demonstrate that the petitioner's claim was not rejected by the authorities on the ground of delay but for non-availability of documents. So, the justifiability of the rejection of the claim on the above ground was to be adjudicated in the writ petition. But this Court proceeded from a different perspective and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of belated filing. From what has been narrated before, this amounts to a mistake of fact committed by the Court resulting in miscarriage of justice.”
Case Title: Susanta Kumar Samal v. State of Odisha | Soumya Sankar Chakra @ Raja v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 146
The Orissa High Court denied bail to youth leader of Biju Janata Dal (BJD) Soumya Sankar Chakra alias Raja Chakra and another man accused of misappropriating Rs. 175 crores by receiving disproportionately high payment for commercial transactions made with a society created for undertaking developmental works around Gandhamardan mine affected areas. Considering gravity of the financial fraud and noting a number of criminal antecedents, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy refused to release the petitioners from custody by observing –
“…taking into account the magnitude of the financial fraud and the propensity of the petitioners for the alleged crime and considering the totality of the materials collected by the investigating agency, this Court considers it undesirable to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage, especially when the trial is yet to commence and material witnesses are yet to be examined.”
Case Title: Sabita Sahu v. Nishakar Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 147
The Orissa High Court reiterated that plaintiff being the 'dominus litis' cannot be compelled to implead someone, against whom he seeks no relief, as a defendant in his suit. The Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra, however, clarified that if the plaintiff chooses not to add someone as defendant, he does so at his own risk. In the words of the Court –
“Court below has not cited any reason justifying impletion of the third party-interveners. It has only been stated that the same would avoid multiplicity of suits but exactly how, has not been spelt out at all. As already started (sic), the plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be forced to implead someone against whom he does not specifically seek any relief. It goes without saying that if he has chosen not to, he does so at his own risk.”
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 148
The Orissa High Court granted visitation rights to the father and the grandparents of a two-year-old toddler, who was allegedly taken away from their custody by his mother when he was merely three-week-old. A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra stressed on the importance of an affectionate bond between grand-child and grand-parents for overall development of the child. It also observed –
“In the Indian society, the grandparents form an integral part for upbringing of children and that part of affection and contribution cannot be ignored or shelved and it is the welfare of the children which this Court is concerned. The grandparents, being ancillary part and parcel of the family, would hold the way for welfare of the child. Therefore, meeting of the grandparents with the children would also be a necessary part for upbringing, before their mind is polluted by unilateral act of any of the single parents.”
Case Title: Smt. Puspalata Samal v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 149
The Orissa High Court granted relief to the owner of an IMFL On Shop who was asked to pay license fees from 2018-19 for considering the renewal of the license, even though the shop had been closed following the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. K. Balu & Anr. (2016), which ordered the closure of all liquor shops located within 500 metres of National and State Highways. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak said –
“If the Government has taken a conscious decision to waive the license fees or the other statutory imposition provided in the statute for the period when the shop allotted to the petitioner comes within the mischief of the distance norms, we do not find any rationality and/or reasonability in the decision of the Government in charging the fees for the next year when the Government was conscious that the petitioner was not permitted to run the shop at the said site.”
Case Title: Kanhu Charan Sahoo v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 150
A Division Bench of Justice Krushna Ram Mohapatra and Justice Savitri Ratho held that termination without complying with the conditions under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is an illegal retrenchment. Further illegally retrenched workman eligible for enhanced compensation as reinstatement was not possible due to superannuation.
Case Title: Dr. Ashok Kumar Behera v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 151
The Orissa High Court held that the government cannot refuse to grant 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) for issuance of passport to an employee merely on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceeding(s), as right to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Crystalizing the constitutional protection granted to every citizen against arbitrary denial of the liberty to visit foreign countries, the Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed –
“Viewed from another angle, the restriction imposed by the State Government is unjustified also for the reason that mere pendency or contemplation of disciplinary proceeding cannot, under any circumstances, be treated as proven guilt of the employee concerned. It would militate against the fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.”
Case Title: Md. Abdur Raheman @ Md. Abdur Raheman Alli Khan v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 152
The Orissa High Court rejected the bail plea of Md. Abdur Raheman, allegedly linked to the international terrorist organization 'Al Qaeda', who is in custody since 2015 on the accusation of illegally running Madrasas in order to indoctrinate and engage youths in anti-national activities. While denying relief, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy found the accusation against the petitioner to be grave. It also observed –
“…since there is allegation against the petitioner for his links with Al Qaeda and the act alleged against the petitioner having ramification over national security and safety of local people at large and the petitioner being not found to have satisfied the conditions of Sec. 43-D(5), this Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to the petitioner, especially when he is found convicted in another case and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and five months.”
Audit Assessment Under Orissa VAT Act Is Invalid If Audit Visit Report Is Time-Barred: High Court
Case Title: M/s. Indian Oil Adani Ventures Limited v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 153
The Orissa High Court held that an audit assessment under Section 42 of the OVAT Act (Odisha Value Added Tax Rules, 2005) cannot be initiated when the AVR (Audit Visit Report) is beyond the limitation period. The Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman were examining whether the Assessing Authority has jurisdiction to proceed with Audit Assessment under Section 42 of the OVAT Act by issuing of statutory notice in Form VAT-306 on the basis of the AVR submitted under Section 41 after the expiry of the limitation period.
Case Title: Dr. Subash Mohapatra v. Dharmendra Pradhan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 154
The Orissa High Court dismissed an election petition challenging the election of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan from Sambalpur Parliamentary Constituency in the Lok Sabha Election held in 2024. A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra found the election petition to be defective as it failed to specify the definite nature of alleged 'corrupt practice' against the BJP leader, nor it annexed the relevant documents basing upon which such corrupt practice was sought to be established. In the words of the Court –
“In the absence of such specific averments made in the Election Petition/Plaint and documents to substantiate such stand, constituting a defined “Corrupt Practice” within the meaning of Section 123 of the R.P. Act, this Court is of further view that the Election Petitioner has failed to disclose any material facts regarding corrupt practice, to be tried by this Court.”
Case Title: Khetrabasi Behera & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 155
The Orissa High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by Shantipalli slum-dwellers challenging the action of the government in declining to settle the land in their favour in respect of Shantipalli Basti/Slum, situated at Saheed Nagar in the capital city of Bhubaneswar. A Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi upheld the decision of the State government to acquire the slum for construction of large-scale apartments in order to rehabilitate the slum-dwellers in a phased manner. Finding no merit in the challenge, the Court observed –
“The State has embarked upon a structured, budgeted, and meticulously conceived programme of in-situ redevelopment, aimed at transmuting vulnerable informal habitats into dignified, permanent urban housing. Where a public authority advances a lawful and transparent scheme for large-scale rehabilitation, courts have unfailingly declined invitations to convert the right to shelter into an unyielding shield against development.”
Convict's Refusal To File Appeal Through Legal Aid Must Be Obtained In Writing: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Jatia Hembram v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 156
In order to ensure that no deserving/indigent convicted-prisoner is deprived of availing free legal aid to file appeal against conviction, the Orissa High Court gave an important directive to the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) across the State to obtain his/her (convict's) refusal to grant consent to file Jail Criminal Appeal (JCRLA) in writing. A Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra also ruled that even though convicted-prisoners cannot be compelled to prefer appeal, they must be given adequate guidance so as to make them aware of their statutory as well as constitutional right to challenge conviction by way of appeal and even through free legal aid in appropriate cases.
Case Title: Sabita Nishank v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 157
The Orissa High Court ordered rupees twenty lakh compensation to the wife of an under-trial who died in 2017 due to negligence of prison authorities in providing required medical attention despite having knowledge of his chronic diabetes and high blood sugar. Referring to the last-minute-effort made by the jail authorities in seeking judicial leave to shift the deceased to hospital, the Bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy said –
“Even though the Prisoner was shifted to District Headquarter Hospital, Puri and subsequently to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack on 25.01.2017, but died on 26.01.2017. This Court taking into account the contents of letter dt.24.01.2017 under Annexure-2 series, is of the view that by the time direction was issued to shift the UTP for better treatment, his health condition had already deteriorated.”
Case Title: Vicky Kumar @ Kashyap & Anr. v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 158
In a vital clarification to the new procedure under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Orissa High Court made it clear that the State Amendment, which increased the time-limit for filing of charge-sheet from 90 days to 120 days under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), is repealed along with the CrPC. Therefore, charge-sheet now has to be filed within 90 days as provided under Section 187(3)(i) of the BNSS, failing which the accused shall be entitled to be released on 'default bail'. The Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra opined that the saving clause provided under Section 531 of the BNSS does not save the aforesaid State Amendment since it had become an essential part of the CrPC itself. In the words of the Judge –
“Thus, there is no doubt that by operation of Section 531(1), while the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed, the effect of the State Amendment including Odisha Act 11 of 1997 gets obliterated. What is in force now is the provision contained in Section 187 of the BNSS, 2023. Since Section 187(3)(i) provides 90 days for the category of offence involved in the present case, the charge-sheet in the present case should have been filed within 90 days.”
Case Title: Ranjan Kumar Tripathy & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 159
The Orissa High Court set aside a State Government order empowering Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of State Legislative Assembly (MLAs) to recommend inter-district and intra-district transfer of teachers bereft of any statutory scheme to that effect. A Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad stressed that unnecessary nexus between politicians and teachers can have a devastating effect on the society. In its words –
“Impugned letter of the kind, which provides for MPs/MLAs recommending transfer of teachers, has the potential of creating a seamless nexus between the political parties/ candidates and the community of teachers. This would not augur well to the system. One needs no research to visualize the fruits of poisonous tree that would grow on the soil of such nexus. It is teachers, more particularly those who teach up to the level of HSC/X Standard, who mould the younger generation as citizenry in the making. As of necessity, teachers have to maintain safe distance from political parties & elected representatives.”
Banks Cannot Penalise Borrowers For Switching Lenders, Prepaying Loans: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Maa Tarini Poultries Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Bank & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 160
The Orissa High Court held that banks cannot impose charges that restrict a borrower's freedom to switch lenders, ruling that such practices undermine fair banking standards and violate binding directions of the Reserve Bank of India. The Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi said banks must operate within regulatory limits set by the RBI and cannot create barriers that penalize borrowers for exercising their right to repay or refinance loans. The Court further added –
"The levy of such penalties operates as a deterrent to borrowers who intend to repay their loans ahead of schedule or shift to a competing lender. The consequences of this practice are the stifling of competition in the credit market, compelling borrowers to remain tied to a particular institution and thereby imposing an unwarranted restriction and freedom of trade and choice of consumer."
Case Title: Ramakanta Majhi v. Santan Majhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 161
The Orissa High Court held that a father cannot be denied the custody of his minor child merely because of his failure to produce 'birth certificate' in order to prove his paternity. While setting aside an order passed by a Family Court denying custody of a minor boy to his father, the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra observed –
“Keeping in view the legal provisions under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the welfare of the child, the right of the father to have his custody and after consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case detailed above, this Court finds that the learned Court below was not justified to reject such prayer for custody of the child on technical ground for not producing and proving the death certificate of Appellant's wife as well as birth certificate of the Respondent No.2.”
Case Title: NAFED v M/s Siddarth Rice Mills, Kesinga
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 162
The Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi, while dismissing an appeal under Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, observed that deductions from invoices made by NAFED under the head “society commission” were contrary to the contractual agreements entered with rice millers and the latter were entitled to reimbursement of such deducted amounts. The Court affirmed the judgment of the District Judge upholding the findings by the Sole Arbitrator who held the same.
Case Title: Soumya Ranjan Panda v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 163
The Orissa High Court held that mere registration of a criminal case against a person in a foreign jurisdiction shall not be a hindrance for proceeding against him in India on the basis of same set of facts or for offence arising out of same transaction. While deciding a bail plea involving certain financial irregularities partly committed in Zambia, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy held that registration of a criminal case or issue of warrant against the petitioner is not a bar to proceed against him under Indian Penal provisions as the same does not constitute 'double jeopardy'. In the words of the Judge –
“The aforesaid exception as provided in Sec.337(6) of BNSS makes it very clear that if the person who is an Indian citizen has committed an offence beyond India, he can still be prosecuted in India, as if the offence had been committed within India. Furthermore, the bar as aforesaid will be applicable only when a person has been tried by a Court competent jurisdiction for an offence and has been convicted or acquitted of such offence and he is going to be tried again for such offence, but in this case, the petitioner is yet to be prosecuted in any foreign country, although a criminal case has been registered against him in the country of Zambia.”
Case Title: Rohit Anand Das & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 164
Addressing an important legal issue touching upon the right to privacy of students and guardians, the Orissa High Court asked the Union Ministry of Education (MoE) to amend the consent form, appended to 'Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry' (APAAR) portal, allowing the students and guardians to refuse consent for their enrolment in such ID. The Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra highlighted that enrolment in such portal was always held to be voluntary by the government and therefore, a clear option for 'opting out' must be given. The Judge further held –
“If it is intended to be a voluntary act, appropriate provisions clearly specifying such fact ought to have been incorporated in the form by providing option to the parents to refuse to submit their consent or to opt out of it entirely.”
Case Title: M/s. ESL Steel Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 165
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, in a plea by ESL Steel concerning the levy of GST on assignment of right to use natural resources as well as statutory charged paid on stamp duty, registration fees, payments for Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF), etc, granted interim stay against GST demand of INR 512 Crores (plus interest and penalty).
Case Title: Amit Kumar Das v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST Circle, Jajpur & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 166
The Orissa High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, holding that the availability and operationalisation of the statutory appellate remedy before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Subrat Rout v. The Commissioner of (C.T. & G.S.T.), Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 167
The Orissa High Court, in a matter involving 'mistaken identity' where one individual was assessed despite having a cancelled registration number (GSTIN), quashed Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman noted the 'mistaken fact' in Section 73 adjudication proceedings. It was clarified that Section 73 was invoked on the premise there was an alleged mismatch in figures disclosed by 'Subrat Rout' instead of a 'Subrat Kumar Rout' in the returns vis-à-vis receipt of amount towards works contract, pertaining to the tax period December 2018.
Civil Court Can Order Police Assistance To Enforce Injunction Orders U/S 151 CPC: Orissa High Court
Case Title: Sayed Ekram Saha v. Haroon Khan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 168
The Orissa High Court held that even though the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) does not contain a specific provision enabling police assistance for enforcing and implementing an order of injunction, still a Civil Court can invoke the inherent power vested in it under Section 151 to order police assistance, if other express provisions are found inadequate to give effect to an injunction order. While setting aside the order of a Civil Court denying police assistance, the Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra ruled –
“True, the CPC does not specifically provide for police assistance for implementation of the order of the Court but the power under Section 151 of CPC is wide enough to be exercised for protection of the rights of the parties if the available provisions are found to be inadequate.”
Case Title: Kalyani Swain & Ors. v. Bijay Kumar Swain & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 169
The Orissa High Court held that an executing Court can order eviction of judgment-debtor from illegally occupying the suit-land even while executing a decree of permanent injunction against him, confirming the possession in favour of the decree-holder, under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Clarifying the procedure governing the field, the Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held –
“…this Court finds that the Executing Court took note of the objections raised and rightly held that the decree of confirmation of possession can only be satisfied by evicting the judgment debtor from the suit land. It is a case of removing the obstruction caused by the judgment debtor to enforce the decree of confirmation of possession.”
Case Title: Kabita Patra v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 170
The Orissa High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Odisha Legislative Assembly Members' Salary, Allowances and Pension (Amendment) Bill, 2025 ('the Bill') which is slated to hike the salary of the Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) by almost three times, making it the highest for the legislators in the entire country. Holding the challenge to the Bill to be premature, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed –
“Introduction of the Bill, 2025 is not an empty formality but conveys the Legislative Will or the intention of the makers of the law what they intended to enact and it would be complete by assent of the Governor or the President. Mere Legislative Will in pursuit of an enactment is not amenable to be assailed before the writ Court as it does not fulfil the definition of law or the legislation perceived in the provisions of the Constitution of India.”
Case Title: M/s. Simon India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CT & GST & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 171
The Orissa High Court held that a GST interest and penalty waiver application filed by the petitioner cannot be rejected merely because a portion of tax liability under reverse charge mechanism (RCM) was initially discharged through input tax credit, subsequently pays the amount in cash and complies with legal requirements. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman was hearing the writ petition filed by Simon India Ltd., a company engaged in execution of works contracts, challenging the rejection of its application seeking waiver of interest and penalty in relation to GST demands raised for the period July 2017 to March 2018.
Case Title: Agastya Das v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 172
The Orissa High Court ordered the General Administration Department of the State Government to change the name and gender of a woman in the property mutation certificate after she changed her gender from female to male by undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS). Providing relief to the petitioner, the Bench of Justice Ananda Chandra Behera held–
“Here, in this matter at hand, when as per Section 7 of the Transgender Persons(Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and as per Rule-6 of the Trans-gender Persons(Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020, the District Magistrate and other authorities under law have issued certificate, identity card, PAN Card, Passport and Addhar (sic) Card in favour of the petitioner…I find no justification to disallow this writ petition filed by the petitioner.”
Case Title: Auroglobal Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 173
The Orissa High Court, in a matter concerning double jeopardy on refund of about Rs. 14 crores where recovery proceedings were initiated under Section 73 for refund already sanctioned by the Appellate Authority, quashed the Show Cause Notice for recovery. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed that by initiating recovery the Joint Commissioner sought to revive a Review Order differing with the findings of the Appellate Authority. It thus 'overstepped' its jurisdiction and so the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice could not override a quasi-judicial decision of the Appellate Authority.
Applying the principles of Res Judicata and Estoppel, the Orissa High Court culled out the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions to hold that once Refund sanction order was upheld in appeal, it was final and binding. Thus, citing violation of principles of natural justice, the Orissa High Court deemed as 'unfair' the action to initiate recovery proceedings under Section 73 by giving precedence to an administrative decision over a quasi-judicial Appellate Order or decision of the Appellate Authority.
Case Title: M/s. Ayushi Galvano v. Commissioner (Audit), GST and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Audit Commissionerate & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 174
The Orissa High Court stayed further proceedings arising from a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand-cum-show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, after finding a prima facie jurisdictional defect in the audit process that formed the basis of the demand. After examining Sections 65 and 73 of the GST Act along with Rule 101 of the GST Rules, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed that the audit findings must be communicated only by a duly authorised “proper officer.” The Court found that the Superintendent was not so authorised and that the invalidity attached to the audit communication went to the root of the matter.
'Criminal Breach Of Trust & Cheating Can't Co-Exist': Orissa High Court Quashes Magistrate's Cognizance Order
Case Title: Priyam Pratham Sabat v. State of Odisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 175
The Orissa High Court reiterated that the offences of 'criminal breach of trust' and 'cheating' cannot co-exist in a given case based on same set of facts, since in the offence of cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making false and misleading representation but in the offence of criminal breach of trust, there may not be any prior criminal intention, which begins with lawful entrustment and is later misappropriated. While setting aside an order passed by a JMFC taking cognizance of both the aforesaid offences simultaneously, the Bench of Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik held –
“On a bare reading of the impugned order as at Annexure-4, the Court finds that there has been no such discussion by the learned court below, rather, the Court finds the order on dated 29th August, 2025 to be a cryptic one. It appears that the learned court below has not properly considered the materials on record along with a chargesheet to reach at a definite conclusion as to which of the two offences have been committed by the petitioner.”