Disposed¶19

Chintamaniswar Scientific Industries, Bbsr v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC25 Sept 2025WP(C)/17902/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha High Court; writ petition disposed; non-payment of outstanding dues; contractor dues; legal notice Annexure-4 dated 19.09.2024; OP No.4 directed to consider representation within six weeks; disputed questions of fact; relegation to civil suit avoided; all contentions kept open; Chintamaniswar Scientific Industries v. State of Odisha; Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a fixed period of six weeks for the opposite parties (via OP No.4) to consider the subject legal notice/representation, inform the petitioner of the result, all contentions kept open, and no costs imposed. ¶19

Chintamaniswar Scientific Industries, Bbsr Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Non-payment of outstanding dues to the petitioner in respect of work allegedly accomplished by him, despite a legal notice dated 19.09.2024.

¶13

Court's answer

OP No.4 is to be instructed to look into the grievance of the petitioner as raised in the subject legal notice, in accordance with law, with all contentions kept open.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of, fixing a period of six weeks for consideration of the subject representation and for informing the petitioner of the result of such consideration.

¶15

Key takeaways

All contentions of the parties remain open following the disposal of the writ petition.ratio¶17
The answering OP may solicit information or documents from the petitioner required for due consideration of the subject representation, provided such solicitation does not cause delay beyond the fixed period.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No.17902 of 2025, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad, order dated 25.09.2025): Petitioner Chintamaniswar Scientific Industries complained of non-payment of outstanding dues for work allegedly accomplished, its legal notice dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure-4) having gone unactioned. The State (through learned ASC Mr. J.K. Ray) initially sought relegation to a civil suit on grounds of disputed facts but agreed instead to have OP No.4 examine the grievance per the legal notice in accordance with law. The Court disposed of the petition, fixing six weeks for consideration of the representation and intimation of the result to the petitioner, kept all contentions open, permitted the answering OP to seek documents/information without brooking delay, and made no costs order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.17902 of 2025

¶3

Chintamaniswar Scientific Industries …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Mr. J.K. Ray, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

ORDER

Order No. 02.

25.09.2025

The short grievance of the petitioner is as to non-payment of outstanding dues in respect of the work allegedly accomplished by him. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to the legal notice at Annexure-4 dated 19.09.2024, which also did not result any action being taken on the demand made by his client. This is not a happy thing to happen, argues the counsel.

¶14

Learned ASC appearing for the OPs although initially resisted the petition saying that matter may involve disputed questions of facts and therefore, petitioner be relegated to ordinary civil suit, now, fairly agrees to instruct OP No.4 to look into the grievance of the petitioner, as is raised in the subject legal notice, in accordance with law subject to the caveat that all contentions should be kept open. Counsel for the petitioner is agreeable with this submission.

¶15

In the above circumstances, Writ Petition is disposed off fixing a period of six (6) weeks for consideration of the subject

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

representation and to inform the petitioner the result of such consideration. All contentions are kept open.

¶18

It is open to the answering OP to solicit any information or documents from side of the petitioner, as are required for due consideration of the subject representation: however, subject to the rider that in that guise the delay shall not be brooked.

¶19

Now, no costs.

¶20

Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶21

( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge

¶22

Anisha

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Page 2 of 2

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANISHA NANDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Sep-2025 16:17:10

Chintamaniswar Scientific Industries, Bbsr v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintamaniswar Scientific Industries, Bbsr v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabindranath Swain Vs Collector,Kendrapara

Ashok Kumar Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Siba Prasad Rout Vs State of Odisha

Nabakishroe Majhi Vs Principal Secy, Dept. of Msme, Odisha Secretariat, Bbsr

Rama Chandra Jena Vs Sub Collector Cum Executive Magistrate

Bibhudatta Satpathy Vs State of Odisha