Refunds ordered within six weeks were paid in stages stretching into July 2026, and the Supreme Court has imposed ₹5 lakh costs on Odisha for the delayed refunds. It closed the contempt proceedings after recording the delayed compliance, and permitted the State to recover the costs from officers responsible for the delay, subject to the applicable rules and natural justice.
New Delhi: Only one of the officials called upon to explain the delay in refunding E Globetech India Pvt. Ltd. and Ajit Kumar Sahu filed an affidavit, the Supreme Court has recorded while directing Odisha to pay ₹5 lakh jointly to the two. Government authorities cannot treat court-imposed deadlines as optional and then rely on administrative delay to explain non-compliance, the Court said [E Globetech India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deoranjan Kumar Singh & Others].
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva passed the order on November 5, 2026; the signed order was uploaded on November 6. The Court disposed of the contempt case after recording compliance, but imposed costs because the State and its authorities had missed the stipulated deadline without seeking more time.
₹5 lakh, and who may be asked to bear it
Under paragraph 10, Odisha must pay ₹5 lakh jointly to the company and Sahu. The bench left it open to the State to recover that amount from the officers responsible for the delay, including the named respondents or any other officer found responsible.
The order expressly makes any such recovery subject to the procedure prescribed by the rules and the principles of natural justice. It therefore permits a subsequent recovery process; it does not itself direct an immediate deduction from any particular officer’s salary.
Refunds that continued long after the six-week deadline
The proceedings arose from the Supreme Court’s July 23, 2024 order in Civil Appeal No. 7932/2024. That order directed Odisha to refund payments made by the company and to return securities and amounts deposited by Sahu within six weeks of receiving a copy of the order.
The authorities received the certified copy on September 24, 2024. The bench recorded that refunds began only on December 7, 2024, after the six-week period had expired. A substantial amount of ₹40,37,084 was refunded on August 5, 2025, while ₹3,40,420 towards stamp duty and the cost of the mining plan was released only on July 3, 2026.
According to the order, ₹77,04,762 in all was stated to have been refunded. The Court noted that interest had been paid only under two heads covering just over ₹26 lakh of that total.
One affidavit, and no request for more time
After compliance was reported, the Court had, on July 17, 2026, required the named officials to file individual affidavits explaining the delay attributable to each of them. The order records that an affidavit dated August 4, 2026 was filed only by Ashish Ishwar Patil, the then-current Collector and District Magistrate of Dhenkanal.
Examining that explanation, the bench found that the sequence of steps disclosed administrative file movement rather than timely implementation. It stressed that no authority had applied for an extension when it became apparent that compliance within the prescribed period would not be possible.
In paragraphs 7 and 8, the Court expressed concern that disregard for deadlines had become recurrent, with authorities attributing delays to administrative processes. The minimum expected of an authority unable to meet a court’s time limit, it said, was to approach the court for an extension. Allowing deadlines to be ignored without consequences would encourage the same conduct.
The interest claim stayed outside the contempt case
The bench separately declined to examine a claim for interest on the delayed refunds. In paragraph 6, it explained that the original order had not directed payment of interest, so such a claim fell outside the scope of the contempt jurisdiction being exercised.
The distinction matters: the Court recorded that the refunds had eventually been made and closed the contempt case, while imposing costs for the unexplained delay. It did not add an interest award to the original refund directions.
Case: E Globetech India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deoranjan Kumar Singh & Others
Case number: Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 193/2025 in Civil Appeal No. 7932/2024
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva
Order date: November 5, 2026; uploaded November 6, 2026
Outcome: Contempt case disposed of after delayed compliance; ₹5 lakh costs imposed on Odisha, with recovery from responsible officers permitted subject to due process.
