The Court issued a summary disposal of the appeal without recording reasons, thereby not creating new law or overruling previous authority; the approach reaffirms established procedural standards and has minimal precedential or persuasive impact in future litigation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FAO/62/2020 of S. NARAYAN REDDY Vs UNION OF INDIA |
| CNR | ODHC010053292020 |
| Date of Registration | 22-01-2020 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Precedent Value | Minimal/Not a binding precedent; order is summary in nature |
| Type of Law | Civil appellate procedure |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | No binding precedential value due to absence of detailed reasoning or ratio |
| Persuasive For | Limited to similar summary disposals; little to no persuasive value for substantive issues |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment is a summary order disposing of the appeal without reasons.
- No new clarifications, procedural innovations, or legal principles are articulated.
- Lawyers should note the absence of detailed reasoning, which limits its value for citation in future cases.
- The vacating of all interim orders is expressly stated in the operative part of the order.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court recorded that counsels were present and the matter was taken up via hybrid arrangement.
- The judgment and order were pronounced in open court in presence of both parties.
- The court simply disposed of the appeal, with no elaboration of facts, legal contentions, or judicial reasoning.
- Interim orders were explicitly vacated.
Factual Background
- The matter related to an appeal (FAO No.62/2020) between S. Narayan Reddy and the Union of India.
- The case was heard by the Orissa High Court, with both parties’ counsels present, via a hybrid arrangement.
- The order only records the case being taken up and disposed; no further factual or factual dispute background is supplied.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment notes that the matter was taken up via “hybrid arrangement,” reflecting modern procedural adaptation, but this is a factual note rather than a procedural ruling or innovation.
- No new precedent or guideline regarding procedure is set.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The summary nature of the order does not break new ground; established norms are followed.
- No new law, split verdict, or overruling of existing precedent.