SANTOSH KUMAR SAHOO v. UNION OF INDIA
Court: High Court of Orissa
Bench: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Orissa judgment dated 2025-12-04. SANTOSH KUMAR SAHOO v. UNION OF INDIA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W. P. (C) No. 3062 of 2020 Santosh Kumar Sahoo …. Petitioner(s) Ms. Supriya Patra, Adv. -versus- Union of India & Ors. …. Opposite Party(s) Mrs. Sanghamitra Rajguru, Sr. Panel Counsel CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order ORDER No. 04. 12. 2025 04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard the parties. 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. 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 164 of the Companies Act, 2013, the statutory period of disqualification Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 09-Jan-2026 18:21:31 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. 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. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of as infructuous, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs. 7. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Gitanjali Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 09-Jan-2026 18:21:31
Source: High Court of Orissa. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.