Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ARBA No.41 of 2022 (In the matter of an Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) Kusum Dhal & Anr. …. Appellant(s) -versus- M/S. Khandelwal Steel & Pipes, Cuttack …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) : Mr. Shibashish Mishra, Adv. For Respondent (s) : Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-07.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-13.03.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The present appeal arises under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the order dated 26.9.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar in ARBP No.02 of 2022. By the said order, the learned District Judge allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and granted interim protection in favour of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge granting interim protection to the respondent and restraining Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 2 the appellants from interfering with possession of the premises otherwise than in due process of law, the appellants have approached this Court by way of the present arbitration appeal. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The dispute between the parties essentially concerns possession and use of certain commercial premises comprising shop rooms and adjoining land situated along the Cuttack–Puri Road in Bhubaneswar. The appellants claim that the property originally belonged to Late Dev Durlav Dhal and Smt. Kusum Dhal, and after the demise of Dev Durlav Dhal the property continued to be managed by the surviving members of the family. According to the appellants, only three shop rooms forming part of the property had been let out to the respondent for commercial use on a monthly rental basis through an oral arrangement. The appellants maintain that the arrangement was limited in scope and duration and did not extend to any vacant land or additional structures situated in the property. 3. The respondent, however, asserts a different factual foundation. According to the respondent, the relationship between the parties was governed by a written tenancy agreement executed between the parties. The respondent claims that a tenancy agreement was executed on 10.2.2020 whereby the respondent was inducted as a tenant in respect of the schedule premises for the purpose of running its business. The agreement allegedly contained various terms governing the rights and obligations of the parties, including the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 3 amount of monthly rent payable by the respondent and the duration of the tenancy. It is further asserted that the tenancy was agreed to continue for a period extending up to 9.2.2027 and that the agreement also contains a clause providing for resolution of disputes through arbitration. 4. According to the respondent, disputes subsequently arose between the parties when the appellants allegedly attempted to obstruct the respondent from carrying on its business activities in the premises. The respondent contends that despite having been inducted as a tenant and despite regularly paying rent, the appellants began creating obstacles in the respondent’s use and enjoyment of the premises. It was further alleged that attempts were made to interfere with the respondent’s possession and to evict the respondent from the premises without following the procedure established by law. In these circumstances, the respondent approached the Court seeking interim protection. 5. In order to safeguard its possession and business operations, the respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar. The application was registered as ARBP No.02 of 2022. In the said petition, the respondent sought interim measures of protection pending initiation of arbitral proceedings. The principal relief sought by the respondent was a direction restraining the appellants from obstructing the respondent or its representatives from entering the schedule premises and from evicting the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 4 respondent by force or otherwise except in accordance with due process of law. 6. Upon receipt of notice of the Section 9 application, the present appellants entered appearance and contested the petition by filing their objection. In their objection, the appellants disputed the very existence and validity of the alleged tenancy agreement relied upon by the respondent. The appellants contended that no written tenancy agreement had ever been executed between the parties and that the document produced by the respondent purporting to be a tenancy agreement was fabricated and forged. It was further contended that the alleged agreement, which purported to create tenancy rights for a period of seven years, was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and that the same, being unregistered, could not be relied upon in evidence. 7. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge initially dismissed the application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The dismissal of the application prompted the respondent to approach this Court by filing an appeal registered as ARBA No.09 of 2022. During the hearing of the said appeal, this Court found it necessary to ascertain the factual position regarding possession and the state of the premises and therefore appointed a Special Officer to inspect the premises and submit a report. The Special Officer was directed to visit the property and place before the Court a report regarding the prevailing circumstances at the site. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 5 8. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Special Officer visited the premises and submitted a report dated 7.4.2022. After taking note of the report of the Special Officer and the rival contentions of the parties, this Court disposed of ARBA No.09 of 2022 by order dated 18.4.2022. By the said order, the matter was remitted to the Court of the learned District Judge for reconsideration of the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Court below was directed to rehear the matter in light of the pleadings and materials placed on record, including the report of the Special Officer, and to decide the application within the stipulated time while maintaining status quo in the meantime. 9. Following the remand of the matter, the learned District Judge once again heard the parties on the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The appellants filed their counter affidavit elaborating their objections to the respondent’s claim and reiterating that the alleged tenancy agreement was a fabricated document. The respondent, in turn, filed a rejoinder responding to the allegations raised by the appellants and asserting that the tenancy agreement was genuine and that the respondent had been lawfully occupying the premises for the purpose of its business activities. 10. Upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the report of the Special Officer and the materials placed on record, the learned District Judge proceeded to dispose of the application under Section 9 by order dated 26.9.2022. By the said order, the learned District Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 6 Judge restrained the appellants from obstructing the entry of the respondent and its representatives into the schedule premises and from evicting the respondent otherwise than through due process of law. 11. The appellants, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned District Judge, have preferred the present appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before this Court. 12. This Court shall now endeavour to summarise the contentions of the Parties and the broad grounds that have been raised. II. APPELLANTS’ SUBMISSIONS: 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assails the impugned order dated 26.9.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar in ARBP No.02 of 2022 primarily on the ground that the court below failed to properly appreciate the factual and legal objections raised by the appellants while granting interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. According to the appellants, the learned District Judge proceeded on an erroneous assumption regarding the existence of a valid tenancy agreement between the parties and thereby granted relief in favour of the respondent without examining the legality and admissibility of the document relied upon by the respondent. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the materials on record and therefore liable to be set aside. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 7 14. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the very foundation of the respondent’s claim is a purported tenancy agreement dated 10.2.2020, which according to the appellants is a fabricated and forged document. The appellants assert that no written tenancy agreement was ever executed between the parties and that the respondent was merely allowed to occupy three shop rooms under an oral arrangement for a limited purpose and duration. It is further submitted that the alleged tenancy agreement relied upon by the respondent purports to create tenancy rights for a period of seven years. Such a lease, according to the appellants, is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Since the document relied upon by the respondent is not registered, the same cannot be relied upon for any purpose in law and therefore could not have been the basis for granting protection under Section 9 of the Act. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the court below failed to consider that the respondent had not produced any earlier tenancy agreement despite claiming that the business had been carried on from the premises for several decades. According to the appellants, the absence of any prior tenancy documents itself indicates that the alleged agreement relied upon by the respondent is not genuine. It is also argued that the respondent produced more than one version of tenancy agreements relating to the same property and period, which according to the appellants further Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 8 exposes the falsity of the respondent’s claim and indicates that the documents were created for the purpose of litigation. 16. The appellants also contend that the learned District Judge did not properly examine the nature and extent of possession claimed by the respondent. According to the appellants, the respondent was originally permitted to use only three shop rooms measuring approximately 1350 square feet for commercial purposes. However, the respondent allegedly extended his occupation beyond the agreed area and began occupying additional portions of the property including vacant land and two additional shop rooms. It is further alleged that the respondent constructed certain structures including a two-storied building over the vacant land after the demise of the original landlord without obtaining the consent of the appellants or the necessary approval from the competent authorities. 17. It is further submitted that the respondent has also been irregular in payment of rent and is a defaulter in respect of several months of rent. According to the appellants, after the demise of Late Dev Durlav Dhal, the respondent deposited only partial rent for certain periods and altogether failed to pay rent for other months, resulting in substantial arrears. In such circumstances, the appellants argue that the respondent cannot claim equitable relief by invoking the provisions of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 18. It is lastly contended that the learned District Judge did not give due consideration to the objections raised by the appellants against the report submitted by the Special Officer. According to the appellants, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 9 although the matter had earlier been remitted by this Court for reconsideration after the Special Officer’s inspection, the court below failed to adequately evaluate the objections filed by the appellants in relation to the said report and proceeded to grant relief in favour of the respondent. For all these reasons, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from serious legal infirmities and is liable to be set aside by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. III. RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS: 19. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the order dated 26.9.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar in ARBP No.02 of 2022 and submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is contended that the learned District Judge carefully examined the pleadings of the parties, the materials placed on record and the report submitted by the Special Officer before granting interim protection to the respondent. According to the respondent, the order passed by the court below is a reasoned one and was made only to ensure that the respondent is not forcibly dispossessed from the premises otherwise than through due process of law. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has been carrying on business from the premises in question for a Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 10 considerable period and was inducted as a tenant pursuant to a tenancy agreement executed between the parties. The respondent asserts that the tenancy agreement dated 10.2.2020 governed the relationship between the parties and that the said agreement contained an arbitration clause providing for resolution of disputes through arbitration. It is further contended that the tenancy was agreed to continue up to 9.2.2027 and that the respondent has been regularly paying rent in terms of the agreement. In these circumstances, the respondent submits that any attempt by the appellants to interfere with the respondent’s possession or to forcibly evict the respondent from the premises would amount to violation of the contractual rights of the respondent. 21. It is further submitted that the learned District Judge was justified in exercising powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to grant interim protection pending arbitration. According to the respondent, the purpose of Section 9 is to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and to protect the rights of the parties until the arbitral proceedings are commenced or concluded. In the present case, the respondent had approached the court apprehending forcible eviction and obstruction in the conduct of business activities. The order passed by the court below merely restrains the appellants from evicting the respondent otherwise than through due process of law and therefore does not cause any prejudice to the appellants. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the objections raised by the appellants regarding the validity of the tenancy Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 11 agreement or the authenticity of the document relied upon by the respondent involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of deciding an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. According to the respondent, such disputes relating to the validity or enforceability of the agreement are matters that can appropriately be examined by the arbitral tribunal in accordance with law. It is therefore argued that the court exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 is not required to finally adjudicate upon those issues while considering whether interim protection should be granted. 23. The respondent further submits that this Court, while dealing with the earlier appeal in ARBA No.09 of 2022, had directed reconsideration of the matter after taking into account the report of the Special Officer appointed by this Court. The learned District Judge, upon remand, considered the said report along with the pleadings of the parties and thereafter passed the impugned order granting limited protection to the respondent. It is therefore contended that the impugned order is consistent with the directions issued by this Court and does not call for interference. 24. It is lastly contended that the order passed by the learned District Judge merely safeguards the respondent from unlawful interference and does not confer any final rights upon the respondent in respect of the disputed property. The appellants remain at liberty to seek eviction of the respondent in accordance with law. The respondent Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 12 therefore submits that the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. IV. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION: 25. Having heard the parties and perused the materials available on record, this court here has identified the following issue to be determined: A. Whether the order of the Ld. District Judge warrants interference keeping in mind the limitations of this court’s powers under Section 37 of the A&C Act? V. ISSUE A: WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE LD. DISTRICT JUDGE WARRANTS INTERFERENCE KEEPING IN MIND THE LIMITATIONS OF THIS COURT’S POWERS UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE A&C ACT? 26. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials placed on record, including the impugned order dated 26.9.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar in ARBP No.02 of 2022. 27. The scope of the present appeal arises under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and is directed against an order granting interim protection under Section 9 of the Act. At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind that the jurisdiction exercised by the court under Section 9 is essentially discretionary in nature and is intended to preserve the subject matter of the dispute pending resolution of the dispute through arbitration. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 13 28. It would be apposite to briefly advert to the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The provision empowers the Court to grant interim measures of protection before the commencement of arbitral proceedings, during the pendency of such proceedings, or even after the award but before its enforcement. The object of the provision is essentially protective in nature, namely to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and to ensure that the arbitral proceedings, when commenced, are not rendered infructuous. While considering an application under Section 9, the Court is not expected to finally adjudicate the disputes between the parties but is required to form a prima facie view on the basis of the materials placed before it. 29. The exercise of power under Section 9 is guided by well-established equitable principles applicable to the grant of interim relief. The Court is required to examine whether the applicant has been able to establish a prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting protection and whether refusal of interim relief would cause irreparable injury to the applicant. At the same time, the Court must ensure that the order sought is necessary for preserving the subject matter of the dispute or protecting the rights of the parties pending arbitration. The jurisdiction under Section 9 is thus discretionary and must be exercised judiciously having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 30. It is equally well settled that the Court while dealing with an application under Section 9 does not undertake a detailed Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 14 examination of contested issues of fact or questions relating to the validity and enforceability of the underlying contract. Such issues ordinarily fall within the domain of the arbitral tribunal. The Court’s enquiry at this stage remains confined to determining whether interim protection is warranted so that the arbitral process, when invoked, can effectively adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 31. In the present case, the respondent approached the court below alleging interference by the appellants with the respondent’s possession and business activities carried on from the schedule premises. The relief sought in the Section 9 application was essentially preventive in nature, namely to restrain the appellants from obstructing entry into the premises and from evicting the respondent otherwise than through due process of law. The learned District Judge, upon considering the pleadings of the parties and the materials placed on record, granted the said relief while observing that the respondent ought not to be dispossessed except in accordance with law. 32. One of the principal grounds urged by the appellants is that the alleged tenancy agreement relied upon by the respondent is a forged and fabricated document and that the same, being an unregistered document purporting to create tenancy for a period of seven years, cannot be relied upon in law. While such objections have been strongly urged by the appellants, it is evident that these issues involve disputed questions of fact which require detailed examination of evidence. At the stage of deciding an application Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 15 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court is not expected to conclusively determine such disputed issues. The purpose of the proceeding is limited to examining whether a prima facie case exists and whether interim protection is necessary to safeguard the subject matter of the dispute pending adjudication. 33. In this context, the earlier proceedings before this Court assume relevance. When the matter had earlier come before this Court in ARBA No.09 of 2022, this Court considered it appropriate to ascertain the factual position at the site and accordingly appointed a Special Officer to visit the premises and submit a report. The Special Officer, upon visiting the premises, submitted his report dated 7.4.2022 describing the existing situation and the manner in which the respondent was carrying on business activities from the premises. The report also recorded that certain materials such as stacks of bricks had been placed in front of the premises which had the effect of causing obstruction to access to the shop rooms being used by the respondent. 34. The report of the Special Officer further noted that the bricks had been stacked at a distance in front of the shutter of the shop rooms and that the placement of those materials created difficulty in free ingress and egress to the premises. The report therefore indicated that the respondent’s access to the premises was being hindered by the obstruction created in front of the shops. Such findings formed part of the materials placed before the learned District Judge when Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 16 the matter was reconsidered pursuant to the order of remand passed by this Court. 35. The learned District Judge, while dealing with the application under Section 9 after remand, took note of the said report and the circumstances emerging therefrom. The existence of obstruction in the approach to the premises and the apprehension of interference with the respondent’s possession were considered relevant factors in determining whether interim protection was required. The court below ultimately concluded that unless restrained, the appellants might interfere with the respondent’s use of the premises and that such interference could lead to disruption of the respondent’s business activities. 36. It is well settled that while considering an application for interim protection, the court is required to examine whether the applicant has established a prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting protection and whether denial of interim relief would result in irreparable injury. These principles guide the exercise of discretion under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In the present case, the existence of a long- standing business operation in the premises and the findings recorded by the Special Officer regarding obstruction to access provided a factual basis for the court below to conclude that interim protection was warranted. 37. It is pertinent to note that, the order passed by the learned District Judge does not confer any final right upon the respondent with Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 17 regard to the disputed property. The order merely restrains the appellants from obstructing entry into the premises and from evicting the respondent otherwise than in accordance with due process of law. The appellants are not prevented from seeking appropriate remedies in accordance with law if they claim that the respondent is in unauthorized occupation. The impugned order thus operates only as an interim protective measure pending resolution of the dispute. 38. The contentions advanced by the appellants regarding the alleged invalidity of the tenancy agreement, the extent of the respondent’s occupation and the alleged unauthorized constructions are matters that require detailed adjudication. Such questions cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of deciding an application under Section 9. Those issues can appropriately be examined in the course of arbitral proceedings or in other appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 39. Upon an overall consideration of the materials placed on record, including the report of the Special Officer and the circumstances noted by the learned District Judge, this Court finds that the court below exercised its discretion on a reasonable appreciation of the facts placed before it. The existence of obstruction affecting access to the premises and the apprehension of interference with the respondent’s possession were relevant considerations supporting the grant of interim protection. These circumstances prima facie indicate that the respondent had established a case warranting protection and Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 18 that the balance of convenience also lay in favour of maintaining the status quo. 40. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any manifest illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned District Judge warranting interference in the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The reasons recorded by the court below are based on the materials placed before it and the limited nature of the relief granted further indicates that the order was intended only to preserve the existing state of affairs pending adjudication of the dispute. Accordingly, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. VI. CONCLUSION: 41. In light of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar while exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 examined the materials placed before the court and granted limited interim protection in favour of the respondent in order to safeguard the subject matter of the dispute. The impugned order merely restrains the appellants from obstructing the entry of the respondent and its representatives into the schedule premises and from evicting the respondent otherwise than through due process of law. The said direction does not confer any final adjudication of rights between the parties but only preserves the existing position pending resolution of disputes through appropriate legal proceedings. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 19 42. Having considered the materials on record and the reasons recorded by the learned District Judge, this Court does not find any such infirmity in the impugned order. The learned District Judge exercised discretion on the basis of the factual circumstances placed before it, including the report of the Special Officer and the apprehension of obstruction to the respondent’s possession. The order passed by the court below cannot therefore be said to be arbitrary or legally unsustainable. 43. Consequently, the present appeal filed under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 stands dismissed. The order dated 26.9.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar in ARBP No.02 of 2022 is affirmed. It is however clarified that the observations made in this judgment are confined to the adjudication of the present appeal and shall not prejudice the rights of the parties in any arbitral proceedings or other proceedings that may be initiated in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. 44. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 13th March, 2026/