Orissa High Court
Kalinga Institute Of vs Sasmita Rani Samanta on 11 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CONTR No.9 of 2025
Kalinga Institute of .... Petitioner
Industrial Technology
(KIIT), Bhubaneswar
Mr. P.K. Rath, Senior Advocate
-versus-
Sasmita Rani Samanta, .... Opp. Party/
Chairperson-cum-Managing Contemnor
Director of M/s. Sustainable
Outreach & Universal
Leadership Ltd. (SOUL),
Bhubaneswar, Khurdha
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Order ORDER
No. 11.09.2025
01. 1. This contempt petition has been filed by the
petitioner, inter alia, alleging that the undertaking
giving to this Court by way of settlement has been
deliberately not complied with by the opposite party-
comtemnor, hence liable for contempt of this court.
2. In the present contempt petition, the opposite
party-contemnor has approached this Court
challenging the summoning order issued by the
learned trial Court under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Page 1 of 3
When the matter was taken up for consideration, the
opposite party-contemnor mooted an idea to settle the
matter and circulated the draft settlement, which was
agreed upon by the petitioner. On the basis of the said
settlement terms, CRLMC No.3375 of 2024 was
disposed of vide order dated 16.01.2025.
3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that
despite the settlement and undertaking, the opposite
party-contemnor has violated the terms of settlement
therefore, the present contempt petition has been
filed.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party-
contemnor submits that as per the settlement terms,
in the event, if the opposite party fails to make good
the payment, it was agreed that the complaint case
would be revived. In fact, the complaint case has been
revived and the trial is going on.
5. At this stage, Mr. P.K. Rath, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the petitioner relying upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bank of Baroda vs. Sadruddin Hasan Daya and
another, reported in (2004) 1 SCC 360, submits that
violation of the undertaking of the settlement terms
before the Court attracts the contempt jurisdiction of
the Court. He has relied upon paragraph-14 of the
said judgment, which reads as under:
Page 2 of 3
"14. The respondents had filed consent terms in
this Court but the same contained an undertaking that they would not alienate, encumber or charge the properties to anyone until the decree was satisfied. Acting upon this undertaking and the consent terms, this Court passed the decree whereunder the respondents (defendants) were given the facility of depositing the amount in eight quarterly instalments commencing from 1-11- 1999 to 1-8-2001. This Court, therefore, put its imprimatur upon the consent terms and made it a decree of the court. The violation or breach of the undertaking which became part of the decree of the court certainly amounts to contempt of court, irrespective of the fact that it is open to the decree-holder to execute the decree. Contempt is a matter between the court and the alleged contemner and is not affected in any manner by the rights or obligations of the parties to the litigation inter se."
6. Issue notice to the opposite party-contemnor by Registered Post with A.D./Speed Post with A.D. making it returnable within four weeks.
7. List this matter four weeks after.
Subhasis (S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY
Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 12-Sep-2025 10:50:55 Page 3 of 3