Rasmita Das vs Joint Director
2026 Latest Caselaw 2177 Ori

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2177 Ori
Judgement Date : 10 March, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Rasmita Das vs Joint Director on 10 March, 2026

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                CRLA No. 77 of 2026
        Rasmita Das                           ....                  Appellant
                                         Mr. Prakash Chandra Sethi, Advocate
                                       -versus-
        Joint Director, Enforcement
        Directorate, Bhubaneswar Sub-
        Zonal Office, Nayapalli, IRC
        Village, BBSR                          ....              Respondent
                                                Mr. Rajat Kumar Panda (ED)

            CORAM:
              THE HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
                                        ORDER

10.03.2026 Order No.

05. (Through hybrid mode)

I.A. No. 675 of 2026

1. This is the 4th interlocutory application filed on behalf of

the Appellant-Petitioner for amendment of the Appeal (as per the

proposed amendment mentioned in paragraph 3 ii above.)

2. I.A. No. 474 of 2026 and I.A. No. 476 of 2026 had been

filed earlier for amendment of the Appeal. Both the I.As. were

permitted to be withdrawn by order dated 13.02.2026 as the learned

counsel for the Petitioner wanted to file a properly constituted

application.

3. I.A. No. 535 of 2026 filed subsequently was permitted to be

withdrawn on 25.02.2026, directing that I.A. for amendment in

proper format shall be filed by 07.03.2026 as undertaken, after

serving copy thereof on the learned counsel for the Respondent.

4. Perusal of this I.A. reveals that it is not in proper format. It

is however stated in the prayer that the Appellant-Petitioner may be

permitted to amend the Appeal as per proposed amendment

mentioned in para 3 ii.

5. Perusal of para 3 ii reveals that it contains the proposed

amendment which is as follows:

"2. Proposed Amendment: It is therefore humbly prayed that in view of the above submission the order passed by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant may be quashed and further be pleased to pass any such order/s as may be deemed fit and proper."

6. Mr. Prakash Chandra Sethi, learned counsel for the

Appellant submits that the proposed amendment will not change

the basic character of the Appeal and no prejudice will be caused to

the Respondent-Opposite Party if the amendment is allowed.

7. Mr. Rajat Kumar Panda, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the Enforcement Directorate submits that the amendment

may be allowed at the risk of the Appellant.

8. Although the I.A. for amendment is not in proper format,

but considering the submission of the counsel, the prayer for

amendment is allowed.

9. The original prayer in the Appeal shall be substituted by the

proposed amendment.