SUKANTI MOHANTY M/S.JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA 2 vs DR. N.THIRUMALLA NAIK, I.A.S. — CONTC/828/2026

Case under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 12. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 23rd April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: ODHC010007722026

Filing Number

CONTC/466/2026

Filing Date

05-Jan-2026

Registration No

CONTC/828/2026

Registration Date

04-Feb-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Coram

Mr. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CONTEMPT OF COURT MATTERS ( 8 )

Sub-Category

OTHER CIVIL CONTEMPT MATTERS ( 3 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

23-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 11-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 12

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUKANTI MOHANTY M/S.JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA 2

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DR. N.THIRUMALLA NAIK, I.A.S.

  2. 2.BIRENDRA KORKORA,DIRECTOR,SECONDARY EDUCATION

  3. 3.CHITARANJAN PANDEY,DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,NAYAGARH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Biraja Prasanna SatapathyView PDF

    The High Court of Orissa disposed of a Contempt Petition filed by Sukanti Mohanty against Dr. N. Thirumalla Naik, IAS for non-compliance with a court order dated 20.01.2025. The court granted the opposite parties one month additional time to comply with the original order, warning that failure to do so within the extended period would be treated as deliberate violation of the court's order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Mr. Justice Biraja Prasanna SatapathyView PDF

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    Fresh Admission

    Mr. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

  5. 05-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CONTC/828/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a Contempt Petition filed by Sukanti Mohanty against Dr. N. Thirumalla Naik, IAS for non-compliance with a court order dated 20.01.2025. The court granted the opposite parties one month additional time to comply with the original order, warning that failure to do so within the extended period would be treated as deliberate violation of the court's order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case