Disposed¶24

State v. Surendra Ku.Nayak

Orissa HC2 Jul 2024CONTC/634/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: suo motu contempt; disobedience of Court order; sale of mortgaged property pending restraint order; third-party interest; W.P.(C) No.17413 of 2010; Crime Branch criminal cases; contempt not proceeded with due to 13-year pendency; no punishment; disposal without prejudice to criminal cases; State of Odisha v. Surendra Kumar Nayak and Maheswar Nayak; CONTC No.634 of 2011; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; order dated 02.07.2024; Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Chief Justice; Savitri Ratho, J.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceeding stands disposed of; no further action taken in exercise of contempt jurisdiction, with express reservation that the disposal shall not prejudice the criminal cases against the contemnors. ¶24

State Vs Surendra Ku.Nayak — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CONTC No.634 of 2011

¶2

State of Odisha

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. L.Samantaray, AGA

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. 1.Surendra Kumar Nayak Opposite Parties 2.Maheswar Nayak

¶7

Mr.S.J.Pradhan, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

Order No.

02.07.2024

04.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶15

This suo motu contempt proceeding was initiated by this Court’s

¶16

order after having noticed the fact that the opposite parties-contemnors had violated an order passed by this Court dated 08.10.2010 in W.P. (C)

¶17

No.17413 of 2010. By this Court’s order dated 08.03.2011 passed in the present proceedings, they were produced before this Court.

¶18

The Court had noticed that the opposite party-contemnor No.1, the owner of the property during subsistence of an order of this Court dated 08.10.2010 to the effect that he shall not create any 3^rd party interest in respect of the mortgaged property, had sold the property to opposite party-contemnor No.2, his son and one Debjani Mohanty.

¶19

Since it was found that the opposite parties-contemnors had violated the Courts order by executing sale deeds in respect of the land in

¶20

Page 1 of 2

¶21

question in disobedience of the Court’s order, the contempt proceeding was initiated.

¶22

It transpires from the materials on record that two criminal cases have been instituted against the contemnors by the Crime Branch for the same transaction which is the reason for initiation of the contempt proceeding.

¶23

As the matter is pending for the last 13 years, we are not inclined to proceed further in the matter in exercise of contempt jurisdiction, for disobedience of an order of this Court.

¶24

The contempt proceeding stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

We make it clear that the disposal of the present contempt proceeding shall not in any manner prejudice the criminal cases initiated against the opposite parties-contemnors.

¶26

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice

¶27

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶28

Bichi

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 05-Jul-2024 17:53:19

¶31

Page 2 of 2