Disposed¶18

Sarmistha Das v. Union of India

Orissa HC4 Dec 2025WP(C)/8869/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Infructuous disposal of writ petition by efflux of time; director disqualification; Section 164 Companies Act, 2013; five-year disqualification period lapsed; NCLT exclusive jurisdiction maintainability objection (raised, undecided); interim order vacated; parties to bear own costs. Court: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack; Bench: Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi; Case: W.P.(C) No.8869 of 2019; Order dated 04.12.2025; Petitioner: Sarmistha Das (Adv. Supriya Patra); Respondent: Union of India & Ors. (J. Panda, CGC).

What did the court decide?

None; the Writ Petition was disposed of as infructuous with the parties left to bear their respective costs, and any earlier interim order was vacated. ¶18

Sarmistha Das Vs Union of India — Company and Corporate | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Jan-2026 11:59:01

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

W.P.(C) No.8869 of 2019

¶4

Sarmistha Das …. Petitioner(s) M/s. Supriya Patra, Adv.

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. Union of India & Ors. Opposite Party(s) M/s. J. Panda, CGC

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order ORDER No. 04.12.2025

¶9

03.

¶10

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶11

2. Heard the parties.

¶12

3. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that, in the meantime, the reliefs sought in the present Writ Petition have been rendered infructuous by efflux of time, as the period relevant to the impugned action no longer survives for adjudication.

¶13

4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Union of India has raised the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition. It is contended that the dispute stems from proceedings arising under the Companies Act, 2013, and therefore the appropriate statutory forum for redressal is the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which exercises exclusive jurisdiction over matters concerning disqualification of Directors and related issues. It is further submitted that under Section

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Jan-2026 11:59:01

¶16

164 of the Companies Act, 2013, the statutory period of disqualification for a Director is five years, and that period, in the present case, has already lapsed. Consequently, even on merits, the substratum of the Petitioner’s grievance does not survive for adjudication and the prayer in the Writ Petition no longer calls for any effective or executable relief.

¶17

5. In view of the above submissions and considering that no live issue remains to be adjudicated, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition has been rendered infructuous. No further orders are, therefore, required to be passed in the matter.

¶18

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of as infructuous, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.

¶19

7. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

¶20

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)

¶21

Judge

¶22

B. Jhankar

¶23

Page 2 of 2

Sarmistha Das v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarmistha Das v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Mohanandia Vs State of Orissa

Anusaya Pattnaik Vs State of Odisha

Executive Officer , Jharsuguda Municipality , Jharsuguda Vs Maihar Prasad Sharma

Santilata Das Vs State of Odisha

Bharat Bhusan Singh Vs Union of India

Jitendra Nath Patnaik Vs Union of India