Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Kamal Tangul Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2022)

Home
Orissa HC
2022
Kamal Tangul Vs Union of IndiaKamal Tangul v. Union of India

Dismissed

Kamal Tangul v. Union of India

Orissa HC14 Nov 2022FAO/433/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In FAO No.433 of 2022, the Orissa High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge against keeping 90% of compensation in a fixed deposit. The court applied the principles of FAO No.262 of 2020 to direct disbursement of the entire compensation, with 50% to be retained in a separate fixed deposit for five years. The application for condonation of delay was also allowed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to disburse entire compensation amount with 50% kept in a separate fixed deposit for five years; urgent certified copy granted.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to disburse entire compensation amount with 50% kept in a separate fixed deposit for five years; urgent certified copy granted.

Issue for consideration

Whether the direction to keep 90% of compensation in fixed deposit can be challenged in light of similar precedents. +2 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The High Court of Orissa held the challenge against the direction to keep 90% of the compensation amount in a fixed deposit squared covered by the decision in FAO No.262 of 2020. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the appeal and directed the entire compensation amount to be disbursed to the appellant, with 50% of the same kept in a separate fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of five years.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.433 of 2022

Kamal Tangul

…. Appellant Mr. S. Sahoo, Advocate

-versus-

Union of India and another

…. Respondents Mr. C.K. Pradhan, C.G.C. for UoI

CORAM: JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

14.11.2022

Order No.

I.A. No.673 of 2022

Heard Mr. S. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. C.K.Pradhan, learned C.G.C. for Respondent No.1-Union of India.

Upon hearing both the parties and considering the grounds mentioned in the petition, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

The I.A. is disposed of.

FAO No.433 of 2022

Heard Mr. S. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned C.G.C. for Respondent No.1-Union of India.

It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that challenge in the present appeal against the direction of keeping 90% of the

Page 1 of 2

compensation amount in fixed deposit is covered by a similar judgment of this Court.

It is admitted by both parties that the challenge in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in FAO No.262 of 2020 and batch, disposed of on 9^th September, 2021.

Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the principles decided in the said decision of this Court with a direction to disburse entire compensation amount in favour of the claimant Appellant – Kamal Tangul by keeping 50% of the same in separate fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank in his name for a period of five years.

An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

( B.P. Routray) Judge

B.K. Barik

Page 2 of 2

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the direction to keep 90% of compensation in fixed deposit can be challenged in light of similar precedents.
2.
Whether the appeal regarding the fixed deposit of compensation shall be disposed of based on previous decisions of this Court.
3.
What direction should be given for disbursement of the entire compensation amount to the claimant.

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

FAO No.262 of 2020 and batchApplied¶6
FAO No.262 of 2020 and batch

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Kamal Tangul
respondent
Union of India

Coram

AI extract

B. P. Routray
B.K. Barik

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Orissa HC
Decided on: 14 Nov 2022 · November
Registered: 9 Nov 2022
Case no.: FAO/433/2022
CNR: ODHC010761022022
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: B. P. Routray
Disposal: Disposed Off

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from B. P. Routray

Ajaya Kumar Khuntia Vs Fakira Ch. Das
11 Nov 2022
Kanchanabala Das Vs Sujrendra Ku.Samal
11 Nov 2022
Sisa Subarna Vs T.P.Krishna Raju
10 Nov 2022
Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gita Naik
14 Nov 2022
O.S.R.T.C. Vs Motin Prava Patra
14 Nov 2022
Divisional Manager,Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Bijay Ku.Dixit
14 Nov 2022

Cite this judgement

Kamal Tangul v. Union of India, FAO/433/2022 (OD), decided on 14 November 2022.

The High Court of Orissa publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

FAO No.262 of 2020 and batchApplied¶6

Open Authorities

Bench / Coram

B. P. Routray and B.K. Barik

Parties & counsel