- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Orissa High Court
- /
- Orissa High Court Half Yearly...
Orissa High Court Half Yearly Digest: January - June, 2025
Jyoti Prakash Dutta
26 Aug 2025 9:00 AM IST
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 1 To 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 82Nominal Index [Citations 1-82]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...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 1 To 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 82
Nominal Index [Citations 1-82]
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
Duryodhan Sahoo v. State of Odisha, 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
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: Duryodhan Sahoo v. State of Odisha
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.”