Prior Option To Work As Para Teacher Shouldn't Act As Deterrent, Calcutta HC Permits To Work As Samprasarak For Better Service BenefitsCase: Mahabuba Rahaman & Ors. -vs- State of West Bengal & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 1A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. held that prior exercised option to work as a para teacher should not act...
Prior Option To Work As Para Teacher Shouldn't Act As Deterrent, Calcutta HC Permits To Work As Samprasarak For Better Service Benefits
Case: Mahabuba Rahaman & Ors. -vs- State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 1
A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. held that prior exercised option to work as a para teacher should not act as a deterrent to the employee to work as Samprasarak/Samprasarika to avail better service tenure and benefits.
Case: Milan Mukhopadhyay @ Mukherjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 2
A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. held that the employee's service at NTPC High School (7th April 1993 to 4th July 2002), though in a recognized unaided institution, must be considered for pensionary benefits as it was approved by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, Government of West Bengal.
Case: Jagbir Singh Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 3
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a protest to be conducted against the allegedly illegal use of zoo land by the state government. The petitioner sought to conduct a rally between the National Library and Rabindra Sadan to protest against the same with about 1500 participants.
It was submitted that although permission was sought from the police, there was no response to the same.
Case: Association for Protection of Democratic Rights vs State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 4
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a plea by the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) challenging the decision by the Editors and Publishers Guild, denying them permission to put up a stall at the 2025 Kolkata Book Fair.
Justice Amrita Sinha held that a writ challenge would not be maintainable against the Guild, which was a private body.
Case: X v Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 5
The Calcutta High Court on Friday set aside an order for payment of interim maintenance amounting to Rs 80,000 per month, granted by the trial court in favour of a wife.
Justice Suvra Ghosh noted the wife had already been paid Rs 32 lakhs by the husband, earlier, under a memorandum of understanding and that she was also employed herself.
Case: Chaitali Roy (Mandal) v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 6
A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. held that the compassionate appointments cannot be granted to posts under Urban Local Bodies in the absence of a specific policy governing such appointments.
Case Title: Smt. Gitarani Maity -vs- 1A. Mrs. Krishna Chakraborty and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 7
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Subhendu Samanta held that when no application for reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is made by either party, the civil court may very well entertain the suit and proceed with the adjudication of the same on merits in accordance with law.
Case: X v Y
Case No: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 8
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar has held that the alimony sought for and granted to a spouse must be commensurate with the actual status and necessities of the spouses and merely because the wife had meagre financial means would not be a justification to restrict the amount granted.
Service Tax Liability Cannot Be Fastened On Implementation Of Govt Projects: Calcutta High Court
Case title: Commissioner Of Service Tax Kolkata Vs M/S Electrosteel Castings Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 9
The Calcutta High Court has held that construction of canals/ pipelines/ conduits to support irrigation, water supply or for sewerage disposal, when provided to the Government, cannot be exigible to service tax.
A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya relied on two Circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to observe,
“Even in case of works contract, if the nature of the activities is such that they are excluded from the purview of commercial or industrial construction services, or erection, commissioning or installation services, then they would generally remain excluded from this taxable service as well. These circulars are sufficient indication to hold that when the Government projects are being implemented, the service tax liability cannot be fastened.”
Case: Afzal Khan @ Fazo @ Afjal Khan & Anr. Versus Siddhartha Kanjilal, WBCS (Exe), Principal Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 10
The Calcutta High Court has directed the release of a prisoner who was left languishing in jail after the authorities were unable to find the proper paperwork to allow for his premature release, which had been earlier granted.
Justice Shampa Sarkar said: The Judicial Department is unable to locate the file and the applicant No.1 is languishing in the correctional home despite an informed-decision of the Stage Sentence Review Board recommending premature release of the applicant No.1, which was directed to be complied with by a coordinate Bench and the Judicial Department was directed to complete the formalities by according approval.
Case: BHARAT KUMAR MISHRA VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 11
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday disposed of a plea which sought to prevent a protest near the state secretariat against the brutal rape and murder of a trainee doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital. The petitioner claimed that he was an authorised representative of the committee who organise the annual Gangasagar Mela, and that pilgrims after completing their visit to Gangasagar would be visiting the Kali temple in Kolkata to complete their pilgrimage.
Case: GOVERNMENT AIDED TEACHERS AND NONTEACHING STAFF WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANR. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 12
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to regulate the functioning of coaching centres in West Bengal and for the imposition of guidelines framed by the government of India. The court instead directed the petitioners, who were a registered body, to first approach the state authorities seeking implementation of the guidelines, and for the state to consider the same within three months.
Payment Of Back Wages Not An Automatic Consequence Of Unlawful Dismissal: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Sri Man Mohan Kumar Shahu vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 13
The Calcutta High Court has held that the direction of payment of back wages is discretionary and it vests a court with the authority to consider the totality of facts and circumstances in any individual case.
A division bench comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen observed that no universal rule or straitjacket formula can be applied in such matters.
Case Title: Bimal Chandra Sarkar & Anr. vs. Smt Dipali Dutta Roy (Paul)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 14
The High Court of Calcutta in its recent judgment held that “availability of suitable alternative accommodation has to be ascertained for a just decision of a suit for eviction on the sole ground of reasonable requirement.”
Justice Bibhas Ranjan De, presiding over the case, observed, “availability of the suitable alternative accommodation has to be ascertained for just decision of a suit for eviction on the sole ground of reasonable requirement.”
Case Title: Versatile Construction vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 15
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury has held that once the “seat” of arbitration is designated in an agreement, it is to be treated as the exclusive jurisdiction for all arbitration proceedings. The Court referred to the 'Shashoua Principle', which propounds that when there is an express designation of a "venue" and no alternative seat is specified, the venue is considered the juridical seat of arbitration.
Case Title: Haldia Development Authority Vs M/s. Konarak Enterprise
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 16
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that power to correct computation error in the award under section 33 of the Arbitration Act can be exercised suo moto by the Arbitral Tribunal when no application is filed to this effect within 30 days.
Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 17
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar has held that an impugned judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata whereby the appellant's claim for refund of 20% surcharge was refused is erroneous in law and perverse.
Court said that the tribunal overlooked the obvious legal effect of the Circulars and Goods Tariff documents before it, which were the only documents which would have any bearing on the adjudication. Thus the court allowed the claim for relaxation regarding an additional 20% surcharge incorporated by the Circular.
Case: Zarin Momim Khan @ Zareen Khan Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 18
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against actress Zareen Khan for allegedly failing to appear in Kali Puja celebrations at various pandals across the city in 2018.
Justice Bibhas Ranjan De held: "The opposite party no. 2 herein approached the petitioner to come as a guest artist. Accordingly, this proposal was accepted by the petitioner but ultimately she committed a breach. This whole course of action, in my humble opinion at best can be termed to be a breach of contract for which admittedly a civil suit is pending. The criminal courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes."
Case: Vishva Hindu Parishad, Dakshinbanga & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 19
The Calcutta High Court has denied a plea by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) to set up a stall at the Kolkata International Book Fair 2025.
The VHP had approached the court against the Booksellers and Publishers Guild who organised the fair and had claimed that despite being given a stall in previous years, their request for a stall was turned down by the Guild for this year's fair.
Case Title: Asa International India Microfinance Ltd. v. Northern ARC Capital Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 20
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury has held that the clear intent of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is to encourage parties to use litigation as a last resort and to resolve commercial disputes amicably, informally, cheaply and quickly under the process of mediation.
Case Name : Chaitali Roy (Mandal) v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 21
A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. held that the compassionate appointments cannot be granted to posts under Urban Local Bodies in the absence of a specific policy governing such appointments.
It was observed by the court that there was absence of a governing policy for Urban Local Bodies in State of West Bengal.
It was further observed by the court that the Director of Local Bodies was correct in rejecting the petitioner's application based on the absence of a policy for compassionate appointments applicable to municipal employees. Therefore, the order of the Director of Local Bodies was upheld by the court.
Case: ASSOCITATION FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS(APDR) AND ANR VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 22
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday scrapped a final report by the West Bengal CID into the death of four undertrial prisoners at the Baruipur Correctional Home. The CID in its report had submitted that the prisoners had died due to their drug use and that there was no evidence of custodial torture.
In going through the post-mortem report, a division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya noticed that the pattern of injuries on all four of the deceased was similar and that their death could not have been caused due to drug use.
Case : Dilip Kumar Choudhury & Ors. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Durgapur, EPFO & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 23
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that once a provident fund trust is dissolved and its funds are transferred to the statutory Provident Fund, employees cannot claim a separate share from the “Reserve & Surplus” fund after receiving their full dues.
Case:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL LIBRARY, MINISTRY OF CULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VS EXPRESSION 360 SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS EXPRESSION AD AGENCY PVT. LTD.)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 24
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that special treatment cannot be given to the government while hearing a petition seeking stay on the enforcement of the award under section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act. Every petitioner including the government will have to furnish security or deposit the awarded amount before a stay on the enforcement of the award can be granted.
Case: AKHTAR ALI VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 25
The Calcutta High Court has declined to recall its order which denied a prayer by Ex-RG Kar College and Hospital principal Sandip Ghosh seeking an extension of time for the trial against him on charges of corruption and mismanagement.
Earlier, Justice Tirthankar Ghosh had dismissed the prayer on the ground that Ghosh had been delaying the trial and had directed the special CBI court to proceed expediently against Ghosh.
Case: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS SANJAY ROY
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 26
The Calcutta High Court has rejected an appeal by the state government against the life sentence handed to Sanjoy Roy, convicted for a gruesome rape and murder of a trainee doctor at Kolkata's RG Kar medical college.
Justices Debangsu Basak and Shabbar Rashidi, however, admitted a separate appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) who had investigated the case.
Case: X vs Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 27
The Calcutta High Court has held that the mere friendship between a husband and his office colleague cannot be misconstrued as an illicit sexual relationship in the absence of any material to prove otherwise.
A division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar held:
Mere friendship between the husband and his office colleague and the closeness between such friends at the time of the husband‟s surgery (during which he was having constant conflict at home with the respondent/wife and was under the guillotine of a pending criminal case at the instance of the wife) being perceived to be an illicit sexual relationship between them by the wife is unacceptable and, in the context of non-corroboration by any independent witness, must be held to be baseless in the present context.
Case: In Re : Putul Ghosh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 28
The Calcutta High Court has laid down guidelines for trial courts to transmit case records after receiving orders from the High Court.
A division bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Subhendu Samanta stated that they had noticed a trend of trial courts delaying transmission of case records after receiving HC communication and that the same had led to a delay in the preparation of paper books, causing a subsequent delay in trial.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 13 Kolkata Vs Champalal Omprakash
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 29
The Calcutta High Court recently upheld an ITAT order deleting the addition of over ₹4 crore made to the income of an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 in reassessment action.
A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Bivas Pattanayak held that the Assessing Officer had erred in not disposing of the written objection submitted by the assessee against the reopening of the assessment.
Case: Mr. Shuvendra Mullick -Vs- Mr. Indranil Mullick and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 30
The Calcutta High Court has held that installing CCTV cameras inside the residential portion of a dwelling house without the consent of the co-occupants or co-trustees amounts to a violation of their right to privacy.
A division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar held:
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161, the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the right to privacy of every individual is guaranteed and protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as it is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty. The dignity, autonomy and identity of an individual shall be respected and cannot be violated in any condition. The right to privacy is also recognized as a fundamental right in International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This right is fundamental to protect the inner sphere of the individual.
Case: X v Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 31
The Calcutta High Court has held that since it is not uncommon for a husband and his family members to be implicated in criminal cases arising out of a matrimonial dispute, the courts adjudicating on such matters shall take into account pragmatic realities.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held: The tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relatives is also not uncommon. Even after conclusion of criminal trial, it is often difficult to ascertain the real truth. The Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious while dealing with these complaints and should take pragmatic realities into considerations while handling criminal case base on matrimonial dispute.
Case: Dipak Mishra Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 32
The Calcutta High Court has ordered a fresh trial in ten cases relating to murder and possession of illegal weapons, which took place during the unrest in Bengal's Nandigram region between the years 2007 and 2009.
A division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md Shabbar Rashidi ordered the retrial and held:
"More than 10 persons had been murdered in different incidents in a locality. Criminal cases with regard to such incidents must not, let alone should not, be allowed to be withdrawn under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground of return of peace and tranquillity. Society cannot be at peace and tranquillity with murderers roaming around without the fear of prosecution. In such a situation, the so called peace and tranquillity is at a price which erodes the basic fabric of a law abiding society."
Case Title: Haldibari Tea Manufacturers LLP & Anr. Versus Mahindra Tubes Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 33
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury has held that admission of the plaint by the Commercial Court without recording satisfaction as to whether the requirement of pre-institution mediation under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“Commercial Courts Act”) can be bypassed and a case for urgent relief is established, cannot be said to be fatal and the plaint cannot be rejected on this ground alone.
Calcutta High Court Allows Rally To Be Addressed By RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat In Bengal
Case: Shri Debasish Choudhury -versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 34
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a rally by the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) to be addressed by the organisation's 'Sarsanghachalak' Mohan Bhagwat in Kolkata.
Justice Amrita Sinha allowed the rally to go ahead after the State had denied permission for the same due to the ongoing Madhyamik exams in nearby schools, over the use of loudspeakers.
Case: In Re : Narayan Dey & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 35
A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court has granted bail to three accused persons who were delivery boys of Delhivery Ltd, accused of offences under the NDPS Act,1985.
The division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Prasenjit Biswas held that the accused persons were employed as delivery boys by Delhivery and were doing their regular course of duty by picking up the shipments and transporting it to their destination as per the order received in the company portal.
Case: Madusree Ghosh & Anr. Vs. The state of West Bengal and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 36
The Calcutta High Court has held that a mere threat of implicating someone in a false criminal case, without any positive act that pushes the victim over the edge, would not be sufficient to attract the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held: "There is no material against the petitioners of such a nature that the victim was left with no alternative but to commit suicide. Furthermore a threat of implicating someone with false criminal case does not gain the status of abetment to commit suicide by the victim. There needs to be positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of section 306 IPC."
Case : KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SOUTH CITY PROJECTS (KOLKATA) & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 37
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Madhuresh Prasad has held that findings of the Arbitrator based material cannot be interfered with within the limited scope of proceedings under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
Case: Delwar Sk. @ Delwar Seikh Vs. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 38
The Calcutta High Court has held that there can be no infirmity in the trial of an NDPS case if the forensic laboratory sends the chemical report directly to the trial court instead of it being submitted as part of the supplementary chargesheet by the investigating agency.
A division bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray held that just because the report was sent directly to the trial court, the trial would not stand vitiated and that everyone involved in the criminal justice system should endeavour to prevent delay, since in this case a substantial amount of time had been saved by directly sending the report to the court instead of routing it through the police.
Case : Kalpataru Projects International Limited vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 39
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that in an application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 996, it would not be proper for the referral court to indulge in an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question of whether the claims raised by the petitioner were time-barred or not.
“Courts, at the referral stage, can interfere only when it is manifest that the claims are expressly time barred and dead or when there are no subsisting disputes. In all other cases, the matter should be referred to the arbitral tribunal for decision on merits.”, the court observed.
Case: M/s. Stesalit Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 40
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) has held that gratuity dues are statutorily protected under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and do not form part of the liquidation estate of the Corporate Debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The court held that gratuity payments are outside the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the IBC and must be paid in full, irrespective of the resolution plan. It further observed that Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act has an overriding effect, ensuring that employees' statutory rights are upheld even in insolvency proceedings.
Case: Sourav Paul Versus State of West Bengal & Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 41
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal cases against a man who was accused of making derogatory remarks and mocking West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and other political leaders on social media platform YouTube.
In quashing the case, Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held:
"After careful scrutiny of the materials available in the case diary, this Court does not find any sufficient or cogent evidence or even prima facie case against the present petitioner. Mere filing of charge sheet without any material or shaky evidence would not suffice the purpose of continuing trial against the Petitioner. Even if, for the sake of argument, if the proceeding is continued, the possibility of conviction of petitioner appears bleak and remote and as such the continuation of the criminal proceedings would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would not be justifiable and to secure the ends of justice, the proceeding is deserved to be quashed."
Case Title: M/s N.C. Construction v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 42
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that while the scope of adjudication by referral court is limited and entails a mere examination of whether the arbitration agreement exists or not, the referral court is not precluded from examining whether the claim is deadwood or ex facie barred.
Case Title: Ashok Sharma v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 43
The Calcutta High Court stated that GST department cannot seize the goods if the quantity or weight of the goods is found correct on physical verification.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that the quantity or the weight of the goods, which were carried in the vehicle, has been found to be correct by the department on physical verification and there is no discrepancy.
Case: Airports Authority of India & Ors. vs. Provash Besai & Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 44
The Calcutta High Court has held that claims of compassionate employment must be dealt with promptly and that the legal right of a litigant who belongs to a socially or economically backward section of society should not be defeated on account of procedural lapses of the litigant in view of glaring breaches by the employer.
A division bench of Justices Soumen Sen and Uday Kumar allowed the plea seeking compassionate employment from the Airports Authority of India (AAI).
Case Title: SREI Equipment Finance Limited v. Whitefield Papermills Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 45
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar observed that unless the arbitration agreement prima facie appeared to be inoperative on account of fraud, the referral Court should not indulge in a roving inquiry as such an inquiry is within the domain of the arbitrator. The fact whether the agreement was induced by fraud would entail a detailed consideration of the evidence lead by the parties and these issues cannot be decided by the referral court.
Nature Of Duties Determines 'Workman' Status Under Industrial Disputes Act: Calcutta HC
Case: Swarnakshar Prakasani Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 46
Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed a writ petition that challenged an industrial tribunal's holding that an accountant was a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court ruled that despite his accounting role, the workman primarily performed clerical functions without any supervisory or managerial authority. It explained that actual job functions, not designation, determine 'workman' status.
Case Name : Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 47
The Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that long-term casual workers performing essential duties are entitled to regularization, and a reduction in workload is not a valid ground to deny it.
Case: A K GHOSH AND COMPANY AND ORS. VERSUS BIMAN BOSE AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 48
The Calcutta High Court has held that the court's original side rules on accepting of plaint and counterclaim need to be amended due to the rigidity of Section 18 of the Commercial Courts act. In doing so, the bench of Justices Soumen Sen and Biswaroop Chowdhury also framed guidelines for the same till the amended rules were implemented.
The Court held: In view of the stringent provisions in the Commercial Court Act, with regard to filing of pleadings and more particularly written statement it is imperative that the Original Side Rules so far as acceptance of counterclaim and reply thereto requires amendment. In view of the fact that writ of summons along with the plaint is served upon the defendant after scrutiny and after removal of all defects and only upon service of such authenticated plaint the obligation of the defendant to file written statement arises, similarly for a reply to the counter claim which in effect partakes the character of a written statement only upon service of an authenticated copy thereof, the time to file reply to the counter statement shall arise and the period of 120 days is required to be calculated from the date of service of such authenticated copy of the written statement along with counter claim.
Case: TAPAS PAL VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 49
The Calcutta High Court has held that once an organisation has been accorded minority status, it would continue to be recognised as a minority institution and would not be expected to routinely approach the state authorities to retain such status.
The matter, challenging the status of a minority school, came up for hearing before a division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice C. Chatterjee (Das), which dismissed the writ petition. "One a minority, always a minority," the bench observed.
Case Title: Union of India v. Rahul Kumar Thakur
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 50
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has observed that if the subject matter of the arbitral proceedings or making of the award was affected or induced by fraud or corruption, then an unconditional stay of award can be granted. However, such corruption must be prima facie evident from the award itself and an honest mistake or erroneous application of law by the arbitrator would not amount to corruption.
Case Title: ILEAD FOUNDATION Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 51
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that for an arbitration agreement to be binding, neither the applicable law nor the seat or venue needs to be mentioned. As long as the clause indicates that the parties had agreed and there was a meeting of minds to refer any dispute to a private tribunal for adjudication of the disputes, the clause would constitute an arbitration clause.
Case Title: Karur Vyasa Bank v. SREI Equipment Finance Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 52
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has observed that in order to prove that the making of the award was vitiated by fraud, the petitioner would have to demonstrate that the unethical behaviour of the arbitrator surpassed all moral standards. The Court reiterated that an honest mistake or incorrect appreciation of the terms of the contract cannot be either fraud or corruption.
Case: IIM Calcutta v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 53
Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed the writ petition filed by the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta (IIMC). The bench held that an Industrial Tribunal is the right forum to determine if IIMC was the principal employer. It further held that mere denial by IIMC was not sufficient to preclude a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It ruled that an employer-employee relationship is a mixed question of law and fact, and must be adjudicated by the Tribunal.
Case: State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. M/s. S.K. Maji
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 54
The Calcutta High Court division bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury has held that once a contractor establishes an illegal and unjustified termination of the contract by the employer, there is no need to prove the actual loss suffered. A reasonable expectation of profit is implicit in a works contract, and compensation must be awarded accordingly.
The court distinguished between claims for 'loss of profit' (resulting from unexecuted work due to illegal or premature termination) and 'loss of profitability' (arising from the reduced profit margin due to contract prolongation). The court held that while claims for 'loss of profitability' generally require evidence, 'loss of profit' from unexecuted works does not require proof of actual loss.
Case Title: INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS VERSUS SAUMAJIT ROY CHOWDHURY
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 55
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya held that it cannot entertain a writ petition if an effective and efficacious remedy, in the form of arbitration, is available. It said that the High Court would normally exercise its jurisdiction in 3 contingencies namely (i) when the writ petition was filed for enforcement of any fundamental rights, (ii) where there has been violation of principle of natural justice, or (iii) where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or where the vires of an Act is challenged.
Additionally, the court observed that the appellant's case does not fall in any three contingencies, and there was a binding arbitration agreement between the parties. Thus, the writ petition was not maintainable, more particularly when the agreement provides for an efficacious alternate remedy in form of arbitration.
Case Title: BISWAS ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 56
The Calcutta High Court bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) has held that tender issuing authority is the best judge to decide terms and conditions of a tender. Such terms and conditions cannot be tinkered with by the Judicial Authority unless they are found to be arbitrary or whimsical.
Case: Aiswarya Rajya Rai & Ors. -Vs.- The Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta Service Through the Learned Registrar General & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 57
In a breaking development, the Calcutta High Court has lifted the stay order on the recruitment of civil judges who qualified the West Bengal Judicial Services Exam, 2022.
Justice Arindam Mukherjee dismissed multiple pleas which had challenged the conduct of the exams.
Due to the pendency of the matter, the process of recruitment had been stayed by the High Court, and as a result, no civil judges had been appointed in the state of West Bengal from 2022 onwards. Even the candidates who had qualified the recruitment process after a preliminary exam, mains exam and interview, had been left in limbo due to non-appointment.
Authority Imposing Damages Must Provide Detailed Reasoning For Penalties Under EPF Act: Calcutta HC
Case: Central Board of Trustees, through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1 Regional Office Howrah v. The Registrar Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 58
Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Industrial Tribunal's order that had set aside damages imposed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. The Court held that authorities imposing damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund Act must provide detailed reasoning and proper calculation of penalties. It found that the original order was arbitrary as it lacked proper reasoning and had imposed damages for periods when the school was an exempted establishment. The court ruled that the power to award damages under Section 14B is quasi-judicial in nature and must follow principles of natural justice.
Case Title: M/s Exchange and Others v. Pradip Kumar Ganeriwala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 59
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar has observed that if the reliefs against the non-signatories to the arbitration agreement are in harmony with the reliefs sought against the signatories, particularly when the legal relationship between the signatories and non-signatories are on the same platform vis-a-vis the cause of action of the suit and the reliefs claimed, then the non-signatories could very well be brought within the purview of the arbitration agreement.
Case: Rajiv Mondal @ Rajib -Vs.- The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 60
The Calcutta High Court has held that the practice of keeping applications for "default bail" pending by trial courts till a chargesheet is submitted by investigating agencies must be strongly discouraged.
A division bench Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray held:
"...Some courts keep the application for “default bail” pending for some days so that in the meantime a charge-sheet is submitted. While such a practice both on the part of the prosecution as well as some courts must be very strongly and vehemently discouraged, we reiterate that no subterfuge should be resorted to, to defeat the indefeasible right of the accused for “default bail” during the interregnum when the statutory period for filing the charge-sheet or challan expires and the submission of the charge-sheet or challan in court.”
Case Name : Sk. Monikul Hossain VS. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 61
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising of Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. held that a government employee is deemed not to have completed 60 years of age if they die one day before their 60th birthday, therefore making their dependent eligible for compassionate appointment.
Case: NCLT Advocates Bar Association, Kolkata Bench & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 62
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the proposed shift of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata premises, away from its present location near the High Court, to a new area in the city's New Town area.
Justice Amrita Sinha held: "From time immemorial people have resisted to change and shift from one place to the other. Relocation is painful. Adjusting to a new place may not be easy always. There may be difficulties and challenges in the process. The initial logistic issues, financial uncertainties, time adjustments and various other factors may crop up. None is strong enough to stall or stop the process of relocation for the sole reason that the shift is for the public purpose. The shift of the location of the High Court to New Town is also in the pipeline, and may be, over a period of time, both the institutions will again be in the vicinity of the other."
Case: BLACK DIAMOND RESOURCES AND ANR. VS INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 63
The Calcutta High Court bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das has held that the imposition of pre-qualification conditions by the tender-inviting authority cannot be interfered with by the courts when sufficient guidelines have been provided in the tender documents on how the authority's discretion shall be exercised.
Case: Rabindra Bharati University & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 64
The Calcutta High Court has directed police presence outside Shantiniketan's Rabindra Bharati University campus to ensure the safe ingress and egress of officials in a plea seeking police assistance outside the campus due to an ongoing protest by dismissed employees of the university.
Justice Jay Sengupta held: Even if the dismissed employees or others want to protest, the same has to be in a peaceful manner and without violating the right of the officials of the University to enter and exit the University premises. To ensure this, let no protest or demonstration by dismissed employees or other outsiders take place within hundred meters of the perimeters of the University campus/es. If the protesters violate such norms, the police shall be at liberty to take appropriate action, if necessary.
Case: Hooghly Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Sk. Alam Ismail & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 65
Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that an employee engaged as a 'badli' worker for over 37 years was entitled to gratuity. The court rejected the employer's argument that he did not complete the requisite continuous service. The court held that an employer's failure to produce best evidence leads to an adverse inference against the employer, and the burden of proving non-eligibility lies with the employer.
Case: M/s. Great Sports Tech Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 66
The Calcutta High Court has made it clear that when work completion certificate is issued in favour of a contractor, the tender issuing authority cannot withhold his payment citing delay by the body, which actually required the work to be done, in releasing payment for onward transmission to the contractor.
While dealing with a case whereby synthetic athletic track was relayed at the Sports Authority of India's Kolkata centre upon a tender issued by the Public Works Department, Justice Amrita Sinha said,
“PWD, being an instrumentality of the State, cannot get the work done for another instrumentality of the State, i.e. SAI, and later on turn around and say that payment cannot be made as the party for which the work was done has not released payment.
It is the primary responsibility of the tender issuing authority to arrange for payment and disburse the same to the contractor. The tender issuing authority ought not to accuse the requiring body for not releasing payment for onward transmission to the contractor/petitioner. Once the satisfactory completion certificate is issued in favour of the contractor, payment in respect of the work
Case Title: M/S. Sauryajyoti Renewables Pvt.Ltd. Vs VSL Re Power Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 67
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that a composite reference of disputes to arbitration arising out of distinct purchase and service orders can be made when the conduct of the parties demonstrates that they were all part of a single business transaction.
Case Title: SRI SWAPAN PAUL VS M/S. PAUL CONSTRUCTION
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 68
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that when a claim is ex facie time-barred and no trial is needed to determine whether it is barred by limitation, the referral court can refuse to refer the matter to arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
Case: DEEPAK BHARGAVA & ORS. VS. JAGRATI TRADE SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 69
Case Title: M/S GREENBILT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS M/S A B DINESH CONCRETE PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 70
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that an arbitration clause in a memorandum of understanding that was not finalized, as indicated by the correspondences between the parties, cannot serve as the basis for initiating arbitration proceedings.
Case: SMT. NAZREEN BANU AND ANOTHER v THE ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 71
The Calcutta High Court's circuit bench at Port Blair has come to the aid of a NEET candidate who had not been issued a scheduled tribe certificate for the upcoming entrance examinations, even after being considered eligible for an ST certificate by the authorities.
Justice Aniruddha Roy held: The law on the subject prescribe that several factual factors are required to be considered to decide whether an individual can be considered as Scheduled Tribe or not. Merely because only either of the father or mother being non-tribal, one cannot be denied, the Scheduled Tribe certificate.
Case: Anjani Putra Sena Versus State of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 72
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a plea by the Anjani Putra Sena, seeking to carry out a 'Shobha Yatra Utsav' on the occasion of Ram Navami in Kolkata.
Justice Tirthankar Ghosh allowed the plea after imposing a slew of conditions on the organisers, including capping the attendance of the rally at 500 and on the timings of the rally.
Case Title:Balasore Alloys Limited vs. Flynt Mining LLP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 73
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that merely because a dispute resolution mechanism is provided in a clause empowering the signatories to the contract to resolve the dispute, it cannot be inferred that the parties intended to refer the dispute to arbitration. Such a clause amounts to an in-house mechanism and not a reference to an impartial arbitral tribunal, especially when impartiality is clearly lacking as the very individuals who signed the contract are themselves empowered to decide the dispute.
Consumer Forums Not Legally Authorised To Issue Arrest Warrants: Calcutta High Court
Case: Abdul Manim Mollah v/s. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 74
The Calcutta High Court has held that consumer forums, in exercise of their powers under the Consumer Protection Act, are not authorised to issue arrest warrants while imposing penalties under Sections 71 or 72 of the act.
Justice Suvra Ghosh held: Section 72 of the Act envisages penalty for non-compliance of the order of the District Commission, State Commission or National Commission, as the case may be, meaning thereby, that the Commission is empowered to initiate proceeding under section 72 of the Act for penalty for non-compliance of the order. The decree holder may take recourse to section 71 or section 72 of the Act for execution of the order passed by the Consumer Forum. The law does not authorize the Forum to issue warrant of arrest for enforcement of its order under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Case Title: UMC TECHNOLOGIES P LTD VS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, (RECRUITMENT)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 75
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Facilitation Council cannot reject the arbitrable claims of the supplier without providing an opportunity to present evidence in support of the same, especially when mediation, as required under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) has failed. As per law, the Council is then mandated to either adjudicate the arbitrable matter itself or refer it to an institution providing alternative dispute resolution services.
Case: Smt. ParulbalaMondal Vs. The State of West Bengal &Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 76
The Calcutta High Court has held that a party who claims the benefit of the various welfare schemes undertaken by the state cannot complain about the restrictions of such policies and act to the detriment of other beneficiaries under such schemes.
In this case, the court was dealing with a squatter who was a beneficiary of a housing scheme by the state, claiming more land than was allowed to be allotted under the said scheme.
Case: Mr. Arnab Goswami & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 77
The Calcutta High Court has quashed proceedings against Republic TV and it's Editor-In-Chief Arnab Goswami over allegedly hateful and bigoted remarks made by a panelist during a live show, targeting the Marwari community.
Subhojit Ghosh, a guest on show, caste aspersions on the Marwari community and it's alleged involvement in black marketing, including the black marketing of masks.
Case Name: M/s. Braithwaite & Co. Limited v. Second Industrial Tribunal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 78
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that when an industry is nationalized and carried on under the authority of the Central Government pursuant to a statute like the Nationalization Act, the Central Government is the “appropriate government” under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of industrial disputes.
Case: Central Bureau of Investigation v/s. Rajnikant Ojha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 79
The Calcutta High Court has held that in the absence of notification of the substance of a warrant, the execution of the same becomes unconstitutional in terms of Article 22(2) of the Constitution read with Section 75 of the Cr P C.
Justice Suvra Ghosh affirmed the interim bail since the arrest memo neither contained reasons for arrest nor were the grounds of arrest communicated as per Article 22 of the Constitution.
Case Title: TATA CAPITAL LIMITED VS KRISHNA KANT TIWARI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 80
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that once all liabilities, rights, and obligations are transferred to an entity through a merger approved by the competent forum, the arbitration clause contained in a loan agreement executed between the parties prior to the merger can be invoked by a third party that has acquired all such rights and liabilities post-merger.
Case Title: SATYA NARAYAN SHAW VERSUS SOURAV GHOSH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 81
The Calcutta High Court bench Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that when a scheme generally applicable to all auction related disputes contains an arbitration clause, that clause will govern disputes arising between the parties, unless a contrary scheme without such a clause is shown.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Bhuinya Proprietor Of A.K. Enterprise Vs State Of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 82
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that an application under Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), seeking substitution of the arbitrator, cannot be allowed when the petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn from the arbitral proceedings and failed to participate despite being given ample opportunities, especially after a long lapse of time
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Samanta Vs. Smt. Sikha Mondal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 83
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sakar has held that if a clause in an agreement gives the parties discretion to refer the matter to arbitration after disputes have arisen, it cannot be construed as a binding arbitration agreement. Such invocation of the arbitration clause requires fresh consent of the other party before the matter can be referred to arbitration.
Case: Dabur India Limited Vs. Union of India and others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 84
The Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Om Narayan Rai has refused grant of interim relief/stay of operation in a writ petition filed by Dabur India Limited challenging the prohibition order issued by Food Safety and Standards Authority of India ('FSSAI') against a specific batch of "Dabur Honey” - Batch No. NP5819 which was manufactured on 13.02.2024 and marked with a “Use By” date of 12.08.2025.
Case: MANIK FAKIR @ MANIK MONDAL VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 85
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a new process for the scrutiny of candidates contesting the Bengal elections. The plea further alleged that foreigners were illegally obtaining Indian citizenship to participate in the state elections and manipulate the results.
Case: Bimbadhar Mohakud & Anr. Vs. Bina Shah
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 86
The Calcutta High Court has taken exception to an order passed by the trial court, which initiated contempt proceedings for recovery of outstanding maintenance in a proceeding which had already been stayed by a coordinate bench of the High Court.
Justice Bibhas Ranjan De held:
"It has come to my utter despair that when the proceeding with respect to C.R 1344 of 2023 was already stayed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 then how come the Ld. Trial Judge initiate contempt proceedings in connection with the Misc. (Exe.) case no. 55 of 2024....it would be crystally clear that such orders were made without any sort of application of mind. Moreover, they appear to be written in a cyclostyle and mechanical manner which is highly unexpected from a responsible Judicial Officer, discharging his/her official duty."
Case Title: Jagat Singh Manot Versus The Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation And Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 87
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth has held that although disputes relating to the cancellation of written instruments under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 are arbitrable, the resulting awards are binding only on the parties involved and not on third parties who were not part of the arbitral proceedings.
Case Title: Gallant Equipment Pvt Ltd Vs Rashmi Metaliks Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 88
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that although an injunction against the invocation of a bank guarantee cannot normally be granted, if the petitioner establishes a prima facie case, the court should not hesitate to grant interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
Case Title: M/S Doon's Caterers Vs M/S Indian Railway Catering And Tourism Corporation Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 89
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that whether the subsequent revision of the original menu by IRCTC form part of the original contract containing an arbitration clause is a matter to be decided by the Arbitrator.
Such an issue falls outside the limited scope of the Court's jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
Case Name : Sabita Sen v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 90
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising of Aniruddha Roy, J. held that an employer cannot unilaterally alter the recorded date of birth of a government employee beyond the prescribed five-year limitation period from the date of joining.
Case: Calcutta Mint Workers Union & Ors. v. National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 91
A single judge bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) of the Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Industrial Tribunal's award that denied compensation to mint workers for increased working hours. The court found that extending working hours from 37½ to 44 hours per week as recommended by the 5th Pay Commission was reasonable, as it was accompanied by enhanced pay and benefits.
Case Title: Anup Kumar Singh Vs Union of India & others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 92
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Jay Sengupta has held that once a liquidation order against the Corporate Debtor is passed, all proceedings including those pending at the time of such order under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) cannot be continued, nor can any new proceedings be initiated, in view of the bar under Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). This is further reinforced by the non obstante clause under Section 238 of the Code, which gives the Code overriding effect over conflicting provisions, including those of FEMA.
Case Title: M/S Krishna Construction Vs The Chief General Manager Metro Railway And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 93
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the appointment of an arbitrator by the General Manager of Metro Railways in a dispute between Metro Railways and the contractor is barred by Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Therefore, the General Manager cannot be permitted to appoint the arbitrator.
Case: Zomangaih @ Zohmangaiha -Vs.- State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 94
The Calcutta High Court has held that the attempt of a man to grope a minor girl's breast in an inebriated state, did not tantamount to the offence of attempted rape under the POCSO act, but could be categorised as attempt to commit aggravated sexual assault due to there being no penetrative act.
Case Title: Lakhotia Metalizers Private Limited Vs Matashree Snacks Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 95
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that once conciliation fails under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act), the Council may either conduct the arbitration itself or refer the matter to an arbitral institution. As per Section 18(3) of the MSME Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) apply to such arbitration proceedings.
Case Title: Johnson Controls Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd. Vs M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji And Company Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 96
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the very acceptance of an offer at a consolidated price for works to be executed at different locations proves that the work orders issued were treated as part of a single transaction by the parties through their conduct therefore under such circumstances a composite reference of all work orders can be made to arbitration.
Case: Smti. Ananta vs. Sri Ramchander and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 97
The Calcutta High Court's circuit bench at Port Blair has directed a woman to pay Rs 1 lakh to her husband for allegedly defaming him by posting a public notice on his alleged remarriage in a local newspaper, without any evidence to that effect.
Case: Professor Bidyut Chakraborty and Ors. Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 98
The Calcutta High Court has declined to quash a case registered under the SC/AT (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against former Vice Chancellor of Visva Bharati University, Prof Bidyut Chakraborty, and other office bearers who were accused of making casteist remarks against an employee of the university at a meeting.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held: "The Central Conference Hall of the University within the four walls of the building of the University is considered to be a public place...The meeting was attended by senior officers ...in the said meeting, the petitioner no. 1 abused opposite party no. 2 and further made a statement that officers from SC, ST or OBC Categories would not be allowed to enter inside his office chamber and those categories officers would not make any mobile call to him from the date of meeting...such utterance prima facie constitutes an offence...Such restrictions based on specific caste identity, and the act takes place in a public view."
“No Work, No Pay” Doesn't Apply If Appointment Delay Is Due To Authorities' Fault : Calcutta HC
Case Name : Padmavathi Sakkinala v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 99
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Harish Tandon, J and Prasenjit Biswas, J held that the principle of “No Work, No Pay” does not apply when the delay in appointment is due to the fault of the authorities, thus entitling the affected person to monetary benefits.
Case: Asish Kumar Sen @ Bapi v/s. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 100
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against a man, who was booked for the offences of inter alia theft and house trespass under Sections 448/379/461/417/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
In quashing the case arising out of the events in 1999, Justice Suvra Ghosh held:
It is a fact that delay is a relevant factor and every accused is entitled to speedy justice in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But attending facts and circumstances leading to the delay should also be taken into consideration in deciding the issue. If prima facie material is found against the accused in a particular case, the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay. Herein, no offence as alleged having been made out against the petitioner either in the FIR or in course of investigation, allowing the proceeding to continue against the petitioner shall be an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner having suffered the ordeal of trial for considerable period of time should not be made to suffer further due to continuation of the proceeding against him.
Case Title: P & P Business Private Limited vs. Marco Francesco Shoes (India) Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 101
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Bihas Ranjan De. has observed that an arbitrator can indeed fix his remuneration, and this can be done in a manner that may not comply with the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provided that such a decision is made in consultation with the parties involved. When parties contractually agree on a fee, the Fourth Schedule will not be applicable.
Case: Metsil Exports Private Limited and Another Vs. West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 102
The Calcutta High Court has struck down a state law which allowed electricity companies to penalise consumers who consumed more electricity than the limit prescribed by the companies.
The impugned rule was under Regulation 4.4 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2011 (for short, “the 2011 Tariff Regulations”), framed by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (WBERC).
Case Title: Sri Arun Kumar Jindal & Anr. VS. Smt. Rajni Poddar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 103
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De has held that withdrawal of an execution petition for enforcement of an arbitral award on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, when such ground is clearly stated in the withdrawal application, does not bar the petitioner from refiling before the appropriate forum, even if the court's order does not expressly grant liberty to refile. Accordingly, the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) cannot be denied.
Case Title: Star Track Agency Private Limited Vs. Efcalon Tie Up Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (104)
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar has held that considering alternative propositions by the Arbitrator and proceeding on the premise that the award holder would be entitled to an interim award under either scenario does not amount to an inherent contradiction. Evaluating alternatives is a legitimate judicial exercise and does not tantamount to perversity.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Quashing Of ₹7.29 Crore Penalty Imposed On Dissolved HUF
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9, Kolkata Vs. Chandravadan Desai (HUF)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 105
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the quashing of penalty proceedings initiated against a dissolved Hindu Joint Family.
A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) upheld the ITAT order which had relied on a Supreme Court ruling to declare the penalty action void-ab-initio.
Case: Dr. Satinath Samanta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 106
A division bench of Calcutta High Court consisting of Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Supratim Bhattacharya allowed a petition that was filed by a doctor, whose pension was denied due to insufficient qualifying service. The court ruled that if the Government delays in implementing court mandated absorption of an employee, the period of delay should be counted towards the qualifying service for pension purposes. The court held that the petitioner cannot be penalised for the delay caused by the authorities.
Case title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 1, Kolkata v. Wise Investment Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 107
The Calcutta High Court has made it clear that the Delhi High Court decisions in NR Portfolio and Navodaya Castles will hold no value where an assessee-company establishes the identity of its shares subscribers, creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transactions.
In CIT v. NR Portfolio Private Limited (2014) and in CITA v. Navodaya Castles Private Limited (2014), the Delhi High Court had held that mere production of incorporation details, PAN Nos. or the fact that third persons or company had filed income tax details in case of a private limited company may not be sufficient when surrounding and attending facts predicate a cover up. These facts indicate and reflect proper paperwork or documentation but genuineness, creditworthiness, identity are deeper and obtrusive.
Case Title: Ananta Barman and Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 108
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi has held that the right to default bail is defeated once a chargesheet is filed within the statutory time period. Even if the chargesheet is not accompanied by a Chemical Examination Report, it cannot be deemed incomplete provided the evidence collected during the investigation is sufficient to proceed against the accused. A charge sheet without the Chemical Examination Report filed within time is nonetheless a charge sheet which disentitles the accused to default bail.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Order Dismissing Plea Challenging Shift Of NCLT Premises To New Town
Case: NCLT Advocates Bar Association & Ors. -Vs- Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 109
The Calcutta High Court has upheld a single bench order declining a plea challenging the move to shift the NCLT Kolkata premises located near the High Court, to a new building in the city's New Town area, as proposed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
A division bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Apurba Sinha Ray held: "The question, however, is not whether the shift in location is beneficial or detrimental per se, but whether this Court can, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, intervene in such matters of administrative discretion. The answer to that must be in the negative."
Excise Duty Under Sugar Cess Act Can Be Claimed As CENVAT Credit: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata South, GST Bhawan v. M/s Diamond Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 110
The Calcutta High Court stated that excise duty under sugar tax act can be claimed as CENVAT credit.
The Bench consists of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing the issue of whether payment of duty under Sugar Cess Act, 1982 can be claimed as Cenvat Credit when the Cenvat Credit Rules does not provide payment of cess under the Sugar Cess Act, 1982 as not being eligible under Rule 3 of the said Rules.
Case Title: VIRGO SOFTECH LIMITED & ANR. VS SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 111
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that non-consideration of a judgment of the Supreme Court amounts to patent illegality, which is a valid ground for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) particularly when the award is passed by an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by one party.
Case Name : Dr. Satinath Samanta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 112
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that the delay by the State in absorbing an employee cannot be used to deny pension benefits if such delay alone causes shortfall in qualifying service.
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. The Reliance Jute Mills (International Limited)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 113
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that once the liability or quantum of a claim under an insurance policy is established, the Insurance Company must not withhold the claim amount and must comply with Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) Circular which entitles the Insured to claim a higher amount.
It further held that the Circular clearly provided that if an insured is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, they are entitled to approach judicial or statutory forums for higher compensation. Execution of a discharge voucher does not amount to estoppel, nor does it bar the insured from pursuing additional claims.
Case Title: Dhananjai Lifestyle Limited vs. Sanvie Retail Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 114
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act can be sought by the MSME only after mandatory conciliation before the MSME Council fails and the dispute proceeds to arbitration—either conducted by the Council or referred to an arbitral institution. Only then do the provisions of the Arbitration Act apply. Consequently, seeking relief under the Arbitration Act during conciliation is clearly prohibited under section 77 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: Mittal Technopack Private Limited Vs Ideal Real Estate Private Limited And Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 115
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the appropriate forum for seeking interim relief after the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal is the Tribunal itself under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. Recourse to the court under Section 9 is permitted during the arbitration proceedings only if the remedy under Section 17 is found to be inefficacious.
Case: ITC LIMITED VS THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADEMARK
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 116
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order passed by the Patent Controller, denying a patent to ITC Limited for a “A Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol.” The patent was denied on grounds of public health and morality, keeping in mind The Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage, and Advertisement) Act, 2019.
Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur held: "The preconceived and subjective notion that all tobacco products causes serious prejudice to human life and health without any reliance on scientific or technical evidence or any other supporting facts is unsustainable. The finding that the subject invention is contrary to public order and morality is unreasoned, cryptic and without any basis. The fact that the Controller was of the view without consideration of any independent scientific or technical evidence that the usage of the invention affects public order and morality cannot be the basis for rejecting the invention."
Case: Rabindra Nath Das Versus Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 117
A division bench consisting of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra of the Calcutta High Court dismissed two cross appeals. Both appeals arose out of a single judge order that directed the release of retirement benefits to a former RPF officer. The court explained that proceedings initiated under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) Rules, 1987, cannot continue after compulsory retirement. Further, the court also held that since the proceedings were not initiated under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (“Pension Rules”), the pension benefits could not be withheld either.
Case Name : Dibyajyoti Ghosh v. The Coal India Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 118
A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty & Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that employee against whom disciplinary proceedings were pending at time of recommendation for promotion can be granted promotion only prospectively after the conclusion of proceedings.
Case Title: Steel Authority of India Limited Vs H. R. Construction Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 119
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) has held that an amendment to the original claim may be permitted during arbitral proceedings, even at the stage of final arguments, particularly when costs have been imposed on the party seeking the amendment and accepted by the opposite party—provided the amendment does not materially alter the nature of the original claim or cause prejudice.
It further held that while Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) provisions may be applied in arbitration, they are not to be strictly enforced to bar such amendments under Order VI Rule 17, given the more flexible framework of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Joni Sk Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 120
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision or opinion of medical experts, nor can it substitute its own judgment for that of the experts. Judicial interference is warranted only in cases where there is clear evidence of mala fides, arbitrariness, or inconsistency on the face of the expert opinion. This case does not present any such grounds.
Case Title: BVEPL BHARTIA (JV) VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 121
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the mere use of the words “arbitration” or “arbitrator” in a clause does not constitute an arbitration agreement if the clause requires or contemplates a further or fresh consent of the parties before referring the dispute to arbitration.
Case: Abhijit Mitra Vs. Smt. Dipa Mitra (Ghosh)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 122
The Calcutta High Court has granted divorce to a man on grounds of cruelty by his wife in a 2018 divorce case. The man had been denied divorce by the trial court in an order which was found to be "copy-pasted" from earlier orders by the trial court in matrimonial suits.
While finding the trial judge's notions "patriarchal" and "condescending", a division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar held:
"The entire mindset of the learned Trial Judge appears to spring up from a patriarchal and condescending approach, thereby attributing a condescending role to the husband, to advice his wife properly and also to condone cruel acts of the wife by trying to “bridge the gap” between the parties. Such observations have nothing to do with the law on the subject. The settled law in matrimonial disputes is that the court has to look at the conduct of the parties from their perspective and to come to a finding as to whether there is any cruelty, either mental or physical, perpetrated by either of the spouses against the other so as to make it impossible for normal conjugal life to be led together by them."
Case Title: MAYA BOURI Versus M/s. EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 123
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that once a person qualifies for benefits under a scheme, those benefits must be extended to them even if they have not submitted an application seeking such benefits.
Case Title: Suman Ray @ Suman Roy -Vs- State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 124
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Uday Kumar observed that under Section 289 of the IPC, it is the duty of animal owners or possessors to ensure their animals do not cause probable danger or grievous harm to human life. Given the serious risk posed by dog attacks, owners must take adequate measures to prevent any harm. The provision's use of "knowingly or negligently omits" points out that liability arising either from actual knowledge of the animal's dangerous tendencies or from a failure to exercise due care in its management.
Case: The State of West Bengal Vs. Susanta Chowdhury
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 125
The Calcutta High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man accused who had been accused of murdering his ex-girlfriend by stabbing her 45 times. The convict was sentenced to life imprisonment instead.
A division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Shabbar Rashidi held that the crime did not fall into the rarest of rare category to sustain a death penalty, and that the convict was not beyond reformation.
Case: Sudhar Mangar Vs The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 126
The Calcutta High Court has called for action against two judicial officers, namely the Chief Judicial Magistrate and District and Sessions Judge(NDPS), for their failure to offer a legal aid lawyer to an NDPS accused who had been unrepresented in the proceedings before the court.
While granting bail to the accused, Justice Krishna Rao observed that the accused was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Sessions Judge after his arrest, but neither judicial officer provided him with legal representation.
Case Title: DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION VS AKA LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 127
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that an Advocate who has accepted briefs from a law firm for unrelated clients cannot, by that fact alone, be deemed ineligible to act as an Arbitrator in disputes involving parties not personally known to or represented by him, even if the same law firm appears in the arbitration.
Case Title: M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus SUJAN SEIKH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 128
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Rai Chattopadhyay has held that where an agreement between the parties contains a clear arbitration clause and disputes arise under that agreement, the Trial Court is bound to refer the parties to arbitration. The question of whether such reference is appropriate or not does not arise, as Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory in nature.
Case: Midnapur District Service cum Marketing & Industrial Cooperative Union Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 129
Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) allowed the grant of gratuity to a former employee of Midnapur District Service-cum-Marketing & Industrial Cooperative Union Ltd. The court held that the union came within the scope of Section 1(3)(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court held that denying these dues after 34 years of service amounted to unfair labour practice.
Case Title: Dulal Kumbhakar -Vs- State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 130
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Uday Kumar has held that a close reading of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, reveals no provision allowing retrospective application. When there is no provision expressly making the Act retrospective in nature, applying it to the acts committed before the Act came into force would violate Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution. The State's reliance on the detection in 2016 that is after the Act came into force of the alleged offence is misplaced, as the relevant date is the commission of the act, not its discovery. Accepting otherwise would undermine the constitutional bar on retrospective criminalization.
Case: Sagar Sengupta Vs. State of West Bengal &Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 131
Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee held that the disciplinary proceedings against a senior bank employee were conducted by officials who did not have the authority to do so. Consequently, the court also set aside his termination order. The court ruled that both the charge sheet and the termination order violated Rule 106 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011.
Case: STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SURESH PASWAN
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 132
The Calcutta High Court has commuted the death sentence of one Suresh Paswan, who was charged with rape and murder of a two and a half year old girl child who was sleeping under a flyover around Kolkata's Khidderporearea with her family.
Justices Debangsu Basak and Shabbar Rashidi held: "The circumstances of the case do not suggest that the offence committed was preplanned or was an outcome of any rivalry or enmity with the family of the victim. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in many cases that every murder is gruesome but does not justify death penalty. In any case, we are not in a position to return a finding that the offence involved in the case at hand falls under the category of 'rarest of rare cases' to justify the punishment of death."
Case Title: SMT. MAMATA BANERJEE AND ANR. - VERSUS – EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 133
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra observed that the judiciary upholds social justice and fairness, guided by the principle that equity treats as done what ought to have been done. In complex cases involving competing rights, courts may need to innovate—within the bounds of equity and good conscience—to find a just and balanced solution. This case is one such instance.
Case: PASCHIM BANGA KHET MAZDOOR SAMITY AND ANR. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 134
The Calcutta High Court has directed the prospective implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) scheme in the state of West Bengal, from 1st August 2025, after an almost three-year hiatus over allegations of embezzlement.
A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was hearing a continuing matter on the non-payment of dues to daily wage labourers under the MGNREGA scheme over allegations by the central government of embezzlement of funds.
Case Title: The Board of Major Port Authority for the Syama Prasad Mukherjee Port, Kolkata Vs. Marinecraft Engineers Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 135
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that once arbitral proceedings commenced under Section 18(3) under the MSME Act, the process could not be reversed to reinitiate pre-arbitral conciliation. The Council did not do so either. It was only at the petitioner's request that additional avenues for mutual settlement were explored alongside the arbitration. Upon the failure of these efforts, the Council proceeded to decide the matter on merits.
Case: Prokash Mandal & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 136
The Calcutta High Court has restrained the West Bengal government from paying a 'stipend' to over 25 thousand Group C and D non-teaching staff whose appointments had been cancelled by the Supreme Court in light of the cash for jobs recruitment scam.
Earlier, Justice Amrita Sinha had stayed the state's decision to pay an allowance of Rs 25,000 and Rs 20,000 to these staff members, whose appointments had been annulled.
Case: Amal Chandra Das Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 137
The Calcutta High Court while putting a stay on the notification by which the state government had ordered the preparation of a new list for Other Backward Caste (OBC) classes in the state, has held that it prima facie appeared that the state was trying to reintroduce the same OBC classes and percentage of reservations which had been struck down by a division bench of the court, and upheld by the Supreme Court.
Case Title: SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED VS TRINITY ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT MANAGERS LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 138
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that at this stage, the petitioner is adequately secured under the schedule to the deeds of hypothecation agreement. The respondent remains fully operational and continues its business activities. There is nothing in the pleadings to suggest that the respondent has attempted to remove or alienate its assets in a manner that would render any future award in favour of the petitioner unenforceable or illusory.
Case Title: WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS. TATA MOTORS LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 139
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that when an application under Section 36(2) seeking unconditional stay of the award on the ground of fraud or corruption is pending adjudication, the question of impleading the person who delivered the award does not arise at such a premature stage. Unless the court, upon examining the application, arrives at a prima facie finding that the award was indeed procured by fraud or corruption, impleadment is neither necessary nor maintainable.
Case: Anuprabha Das Majumder -versus- The Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 140
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has directed the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata to consider the petitioner's application for a new passport along with her transgender identification card.
Justice Amrita Sinha held: "The petitioner shall take steps in accordance with law for the purpose of obtaining the passport. The transgender identity card of the petitioner shall be taken into account at the time of consideration of the petitioner's application for a passport."
Case: CAPE FOUNDATION & ANR. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL and ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 141
The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal government to ensure that elephants are not taken out of the state in an illegal manner.
Justices Ravi Kishan Kapur and Arindam Mukherjee were taking up a matter concerning three elephants who had been taken out of the state illegally and had been taken across the border to Bihar.
Case Title: THE CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. VS THE CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 142
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Justice Kausik Chanda has held that without framing Regulations or without the budget estimate prescribing the rates at which advertisement tax may be levied by Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), computation and imposition of such tax would be arbitrary. It would have no rational basis. It would then be open to KMC to quantify such tax as per its sweet will, which cannot be countenanced under the rule of law.
Calcutta High Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Man Who Raped Minor, Burned Her Dead Body
Case Title: Srimanta Tung v State Of West Bengal (C.R.A. 684 of 2018)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 143
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday (June 24) commuted the death penalty awarded to a man convicted for the rape and murder of a minor girl to life imprisonment, after noting that he did not have any criminal antecedents or past unsocial behaviour and was of "advanced age of 58 years".
The court however upheld the conviction of the appellant by the trial court, observing that "circumstances brought forth by the prosecution leaves no iota of doubt that the appellant alone is the perpetrator of the crime".
Case: The State of West Bengal Vs. Asoke Kumar Maity & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 144
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Smita Das De held that an employee transferred from central government scheme to state university sanctioned post without any objections from the state Government at the time of transfer, can't be denied retiral benefits.
Case: Shri Rajat Kumar Varshney Versus Central Bank of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 145
A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty & Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that adverse remarks on an employee's integrity must be based on conclusive findings in disciplinary proceedings, and a person who has earned reputation cannot be ousted through imposition of a stigma on the basis of perverse findings.
Case title: Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Limited & Anr. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Taltala Charge, WBGST & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 146
Calcutta High Court recently directed the proper officer under the GST Act to consider ordering refund of the unutilised ITC of an Assessee to his personal bank account, as his business was closed and its GST registration stood cancelled.
The Petitioner was aggrieved by a direction of the proper officer, though allowing the refund sanction to the tune of Rs. 68,66,238/- but, directing the amount to be paid to the bank account of the business— Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Limited.
Case Title: Mubarak Ansari & Anr. -Versus- The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 147
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas has held that to convict a person under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), it must be conclusively proven that the deceased wife was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with a dowry demand soon before her death. If there is a significant gap between the alleged cruelty or harassment and the death, the essential link required for a dowry death is broken, and the accused cannot be held liable under this provision.
Case Title: Gangadhar Mondal Vs. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 148
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that when the statutory process has been properly followed, any perceived procedural error or misapplication of law does not amount to a bona fide or clerical mistake. In the present case, as the petitioner's age was determined in accordance with the regulations applicable at the time of his appointment, the rejection of his request to rectify the date of birth cannot be considered illegal.
Case Title: FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIA LTD. (IN LIQN.) -AND- CHANDAN KUMAR GANGULY AND ORS. -VS- THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 149
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Krishna Rao has held that using funds from the Official Liquidator's Establishment Charges Account for medical or terminal benefits is generally impermissible, as these funds are earmarked for administrative and operational costs related to the liquidation process—such as legal fees, publication expenses, and office overheads—not employee welfare or benefits.
Payment Of Gratuity Act; Controlling Authority Cannot Deny Interest On Delayed Gratuity: Calcutta HC
Case: Himangshu Karmakar Vs Food Corporation of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 150
Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) directed the Food Corporation of India ('FCI') to pay the statutory interest on delayed gratuity to an employee. The court held that under Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the controlling authority has no discretion to deny interest on the delayed payment of gratuity.
Guest Faculty Not Workman Under Industrial Disputes Act: Calcutta HC
Case: Sri Hansraj Koley Vs. The Secretary, Labour Department and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 151
Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed a challenge to an industrial tribunal's award. The court explained that a guest faculty who was paid honorariums for specific sessions, cannot claim the status of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Case: Hasin Jahan Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 152
The Calcutta High Court has asked Indian cricketer Mohammad Shami to pay his estranged wife and daughter Rs 4 lakh per month as maintenance in his ongoing legal tussle against Hasin Jahan, his estranged wife.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held: "...Interim monetary relief as fixed by the Court below requires revision. The opposite party/husband's income, financial disclosure and earnings established that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. The petitioner wife who has remained un-married and is living independently with the child is entitled to a levelled maintenance that she enjoyed during her continuance of marriage and which reasonably secure her future as well as future of the child. In my considered opinion a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month to the petitioner no.1(wife) and Rs. 2,50,000/- to her daughter would be just fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for both the petitioners, till disposal of the main application."
Case Name: Smt. Kajari Karmaker @ Kajari Marick vs. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 153
A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that a Gazette notification is mandatory for recognition of a name change of a government employee or their family member for pensionary benefits. Further affidavits and newspaper publications alone are insufficient to meet this procedural requirement.
Case: Shri C. Chitambaram Versus The Director of Transport
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 154
Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury set aside a labour court's order that denied reinstatement to a bus driver, despite finding his termination to be illegal. The court held that when termination violates principles of natural justice, reinstatement should be awarded instead of mere compensation.
Case Title – Super Smelters Limited v United Cables Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 155
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar while allowing an application for appointment for arbitrator observed that the terms and conditions of the purchase order including the arbitration agreement would prevail over and supersede the terms and conditions of the tax invoice which does not contain an arbitration clause.
Case Title: Hemanta Kumar Das Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 156
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Sen has held that the land acquired under the Private and Public model attracts the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act) therefore the benefits to the land losers under section 31 of the Act read with Serial no.4 of the Second Schedule of the Act in the form of employment, annuity or a one time payment cannot be denied on the ground that the land that was acquired does not generate employment. If employment is not possible, benefits of other options must be given to the land losers as the objective of the Act is not only to provide compensation but also to rehabilitate and resettle the affected families.
Case Name: ARCL Organics Ltd. Versus Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 157
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a scheme of arrangement/compromise sanctioned under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, cannot be unilaterally frustrated by a secured creditor by invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Order Passed By Bench Not Conferred With Determination By Roster Is A Nullity: Calcutta High Court
Case: Shri Praveen Jain And Anr. vs.Tulsan Properties Private Limited And Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 158
The Calcutta High Court has held that orders passed by a bench which has not been conferred with that particular determination by virtue of the roster decided by the Chief Justice would lack jurisdiction and be a nullity in the eyes of the law.
In answering a reference, the full bench of Justices Debangsu Basak, Shampa Sarkar and Hiranmay Bhattacharya held:
The reference is answered by holding that, an order passed by a Bench of the High Court not been conferred with the determination by virtue of the roster fixed by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, is vitiated by inherent lack of jurisdiction so as to render the order so passed a nullity in the eye of law and void ab initio.
Case Name : Tarun Kanti Naskar vs. State of West Bengal & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 159
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Smita Das De held that recovery of excess salary paid due to administrative error, without any fraud or misrepresentation by the employee is impermissible, especially after a long lapse of time.
Case Name: Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary v. Steel Authority of India and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 160
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar, while hearing a section 11 petition, observed that Courts at Durgapur would have the exclusive jurisdiction over the arbitral proceeding vide Clause 46.2.4 of the GCC, as the parties could not agree upon the rules of arbitration governing the proceedings as provided under Clause 46.2.5.
Case Title – Sreepad Bhiwaniwala v. Grant Thornton US Knowledge and Capability Center India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 161
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar while allowing an application for appointment of arbitrator has observed that where an employee has been terminated in terms of an employment contract which contains both Dispute Resolution clause and Termination clause, if it is not a case of termination simpliciter, then the dispute shall be referred to arbitration in terms of the dispute resolution clause.
Case: Sanjoy Kumar Doloi & Anr. -vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 162
The Calcutta High Court has debarred 'tainted' candidates whose jobs were cancelled by the Supreme Court from participating in the fresh SSC recruitment process in light of the cash for jobs recruitment scam.
Case Title: Commissioner of Service Tax Kolkata v. M/s Medicare Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 163
The Calcutta High Court stated that an appeal on service classification under 'insurance auxiliary service' not maintainable before the High Court.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing the appeal filed by the department/appellant under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 challenging the order passed by the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal).
Case Title – Bimla Devi Jaiswal v. M/s Indus Towers Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 164
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar, while allowing an application for appointment of arbitrator has observed that the issues of misjoinder/non-joinder of parties and whether the arbitration clause contained in the principal agreement was incorporated by reference in a subsequent agreement by the successors-in- interest would fall within the domain of the arbitral tribunal.
Case Title: Ripan Biswas Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 165
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that the constitutional court under Article 226 is obligated to ensure that no citizen is deprived of his legal and constitutional rights to which he is entitled. Therefore, to ensure that no injustice is meted out to the citizens, the court is empowered to mould reliefs in light of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In the present case, the rejection of the petitioner's candidature on medical grounds was set aside.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1, Kolkata v. Rungta Mines Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 166
The Calcutta High Court held that Internal CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price) method is most appropriate for ALP (Arm's Length Price) determination in captive power transactions.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing issue of whether the Internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method adopted by the assessee was right in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for power supplied by the assessee's Captive Power Plants (CPPs) to non-eligible units for transfer pricing adjustments.
Case Title – Avirup Talukdar v. Avishek Talukdar & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 167
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has observed that where a partnership deed provides that the heir of the deceased shall inherit the share and the partnership will continue, then the legal heir can seek reference of disputes to arbitration based on the arbitration clause in the deed of partnership. The Court highlighted that for non-signatories to be made a party to arbitration the requirement of law is that they must prima facie be connected to the arbitration agreement, which is satisfied in case of such a partnership deed.
Illegal Occupants Entitled To Electricity Despite Lack Of Occupancy Documents: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Krishnawathi v. Union of India & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 168
The Calcutta High Court circuit bench at Port Blair has ruled that an illegal occupant of government revenue land cannot be denied electricity solely on the ground of not furnishing ownership or occupancy documents listed in Clause 5.30 of the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission (JERC) Regulation, 2018.
It has been ruled by the Court that while the clause outlines documentary requirements, it can't be stretched to block essential services like electricity for individuals occupying land without formal title.
Case: M/s BESCO v M/s Hindon Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 169
A division bench of Calcutta High Court comprising Justices Uday Kumar and Sabyasachi Bhattacharya in a notable judgment has observed that the bar restricting the number of arbitrators to even numbers, which is applicable when the parties themselves appoint arbitrators under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”), is not attracted to a statutory arbitration under Section 18(3), Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act”). Thus, even if the number of the Council members who acted as arbitrators as in the present case is an even number, it per se does not vitiate the award.
Case Title: Rasan @ RaisanHansda @ Raison Hansda -Versus- The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 170
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Prasenjit Biswas has held that failure to examine the weapon recovered and alleged to have been used in the commission of the crime is not always fatal but in cases based on the circumstantial evidence, it becomes a vital link to establish a connection between the weapon and the crime.
Case: Bibek Paria & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 171
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge order relating to the recruitment process initiated by the West Bengal School Service Commission for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers of upper primary level of Classes, except work education and physical education classes IX–X and Classes XI-XII, Rules of 2025.
Calcutta High Court Acquits Three Sentenced To Death For Murdering And Dismembering Woman
Case: STATE OF WEST BENGAL v Vs. SURAJIT DEB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 172
The Calcutta High Court has acquitted three persons, who were charged with murder and sentenced to death for allegedly killing a woman and cutting her body up into several pieces, before disposing of it outside Sealdah Railway station.
Jayanti Deb's body was discovered by the police in 2014, inside the parking lot of the railway station, dismembered into parts, which were kept inside a suitcase, backpack and bedroll. The police charged three people, including the victim's estranged husband, his partner and a third person who was allegedly used to dismember and dispose of the body. The trial court, gauging the evidence on record, had sentenced all three to death.
Case: Kaberi Dey & Ors. Vs. Sourav Bhattacharjee
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 173
The Calcutta High Court has highlighted the scope of, and framed guidelines for conducting pre-cognisance hearings under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Justice Dr Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held: “Therefore, the procedure that needs to be followed on receipt of a complaint, in view of section 223 and concerned relevant provisions under the BNSS, would be as follows:-..."
Case: Tutu Ghosh Vs. Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 174
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order taking cognizance of proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) Act, upon observing that cognizance had been taken by the special court, without complying with the mandatory requirement of holding a pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Case: Tumpa Basak vs. Tufan Basak
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 175
The Calcutta High Court has held that due to the development in jurisprudence around granting maintenance, it is no longer handed out as a payment for subsistence but instead to preserve the stability of one's lifestyle.
Case Name : Dilip Hari vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 176
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Gaurang Kanth held that pension and retiral benefits cannot be withheld from long-serving municipal employees solely because their details were not uploaded against sanctioned posts in the i-OSMS portal due to digital system lapses.
Case: AB v REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATH, CHANDERNAGORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 177
The Calcutta High Court has directed the municipal authorities to issue a fresh birth certificate to a minor seeking to give up her father's surname and adopt her mother's surname.
Justice Gaurang Kanth held: "The identity of a child, including her surname is an integral part of her personal development and autonomy. Courts have consistently held that when the change in name or surname does not adversely affect any legal or statutory right of a third party and is sought in furtherance of the child's best interest, such change ought to be allowed. In light of the above facts and the applicable legal position and having regard to the welfare of the minor child, which is of paramount consideration, this court is of the view that prayer of the petitioner deserves to be allowed."
Case Title – Murshidabad Zilla Parishad v Asian Care Development Private Limited and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 178
The Division Bench of Calcutta High comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar while deciding an appeal under Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) against the dismissal of an application for reference under Section 8, ACA observed that where a non-signatory party has been impleaded against whom no cause of action has been disclosed in the suit and who is a collateral beneficiary, the Court can refer the parties to arbitration. The Court noted that it was well aware that precedents allowed impleadment of such parties only when they were applicants; however, the spirit of Section 8, ACA would allow such reference even if the non-signatory party is a defendant.
Case: The State of West Bengal Vs. Fagun Mandi @ Pui and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 179
The Calcutta High Court has commuted the death sentence of two men, convicted for the rape and murder of a 5-year-old girl. It had been alleged that the men had sexually assaulted the girl using a bamboo shaft and later strangled her to death.
Case Title – Precept Talent Management Limited v. Sourav Chandidas Ganguly
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 180
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur dismissed a Section 34 petition filed against an arbitral award passed in favour of cricket player Sourav Ganguly (“Respondent”) by his former management agency, Precept Talent Management Ltd. (“Petitioner”).
While upholding the Arbitral Award, the Court observed that the award was well reasoned and the views taken by the Arbitral Tribunal were plausible. Therefore, the Award did not warrant any interference by the Court.
Case Title: ROHAN BUILDERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS BERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 181
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the courts are not prohibited from extending the mandate of the Arbitrator multiple times if sufficient cause is established under section 29A(5) of the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, it extended the mandate of the Arbitrator beyond the timeline set by the Supreme Court.
This is the second filed by the Petitioner seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitrator under section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
Case: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. RADHA KANTA BERA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 182
The Calcutta High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man, who was convicted for beheading a lady over suspicions of her being a 'witch.'
A division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md Shabbar Rashidi held: "His overall conduct in the correctional home was found to be good. His age is also of consideration. Moreover, he had suffered a fall from the roof of bus resulting in his mental illness which often turns violent for which the family had to keep him detained...We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, imprisonment for life would be sufficient punishment instead of death penalty. We are not minded to confirm the death sentence awarded by the learned trial court."
Case: Subhrangsu Panda Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 183
The Calcutta High Court has held that the driving license of a citizen cannot be impounded, suspended or revoked by traffic police personnel. It was held that while the police may seize a license from a driver over allegations of reckless driving, the same must be forwarded to the court for cognisance. If found guilty, the license may then be sent to the licensing authority for revocation or suspension.
Case Title – Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Limited v Marine Craft Engineers Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 184
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Om Narayan Rai while deciding a Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) appeal, set aside an order passed in Section 34, ACA petition on the ground that the court passing it lacked the jurisdiction to pass such an order. The concerned judge had the power to determine only such applications under Section 34 which did not pertain to commercial matters, whereas the power to decide Section 34 applications of commercial nature vested with another judge.
Case: X v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 185
The Calcutta High Court has held that mere harassment and abuse at the workplace would not attract the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 509 of the IPC.
Justice Dr Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held: "At the cost of repetitions I am constrained to say that even the complaint does not disclose that the petitioner abused her, it only refers the word harassment. In the statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C, the de facto complaint had only alleged of abusing her that too without detailing the mode and manner of such abuse. Mere harassment at workplace or abusing her at workplace per se may not constitute an offence under section 509 of IPC, unless essential ingredients are fulfilled."
Case: EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs AMARA RAJA ENERGY AND MOBILITY LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 186
While allowing an injunction application by Exide Industries limited against a competitior who was infriniging on its trade dress, the Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur held," “The fact that an existing competitor in comparison to a new entrant in the market has deliberately, intentionally and in a calculated manner attempted to reap from the cultivated soil of a trade rival is impermissible.”
Case: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Kolkata v. Minto Park Estates Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 188
The Calcutta High Court held that mere incorporation of investing companies under the Companies Act is not enough to prove the genuineness of share transactions.
The bench opined that, admittedly, the shares were by way of a private placement. Though the investing companies might have been incorporated under the provisions of the Company's Act, that by itself will not validate the transaction.
Case: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central - 2, Kolkata v. M/s. Zulu Merchandise Private Limited
Case No: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 189
The Calcutta High Court held that stock exchange and banking channels cannot mask sham transactions carried out through bogus capital loss claim companies.
Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) observed that “the entire information contained in the investigation report was apprised to the assessee by the assessing officer and thereafter the show cause notices was issued for which the assessee' submitted their reply and in the reply they did not raise any issue that they were unaware about the investigation report but made a vague and unsubstantiated statement stating that the transaction was in the normal course of business.”
Case Title: Ravi Kumar Ray Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 190
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has set aside an order passed by the State Authority cancelling the Domicile Certificate of the petitioner, on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before taking such a decision, which entailed civil and adverse consequences. Since the decision to cancel the certificate was procedurally flawed, the cancellation of the BSF's offer of appointment based on such cancellation of the Domicile Certificate was also quashed.
Case: ROSHAN AGARWAL VS. NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED (NPCCL) & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 191
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that mere use of the expression “Arbitration” in a clause will not automatically make the clause a binding arbitration agreement as contemplated under Section 7 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 unless there is a clear intent to refer disputes to Arbitration. The court observed that an arbitration agreement has to be couched not in precatory, but obligatory words. Although, there is no particular form or universally practiced format in framing an arbitration agreement, but the words used must be certain, definite and indicative of the determination of the parties to go for arbitration and not a choice or a mere possibility to refer such dispute to arbitration.
Case Title:P.K THAKUR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 192
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that when the claims of the petitioner are not adjudicated by writ courts and subsequently by the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition on the ground that they involve disputed questions of fact and law which are beyond the remit of the court, and the petitioner is directed to invoke the alternative remedy of arbitration due to the undisputed existence of an arbitration clause, the matter should be referred to arbitration and whether the time period spent in prosecuting before the writ courts should be excluded can be decided by the Arbitrator.
Case: Supriya Mondal and Ors. Vs. Binod Kumar and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 193
The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal Joint Entrance Examinations Board to recast the merit list drawn up for the 2025 Joint Entrance Exams, to bring them in conformity with the pre-2010 percentage of OBC reservations, as had been ordered by the High Court in its May 2024 order.
This came after the court observed that the Board had issued the merit list in the present case, in violation of the High Court's May 2024 order, which had not been stayed by the Supreme Court.
Case Title:Kamini Ferrous Limited Vs. Om Shiv Mangalam Builders Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 194
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that when there is a clear refusal by one of the parties to perform the terms of a contract, the cause of action arises from the date of such refusal, and not from the date of initial non-performance, especially where negotiations continued, implying that the parties possibly wanted to extend the time for performance.
Case Title: M/S. NATIONAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION (NPCCL) VS MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES (MES)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 195
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that a party cannot be compelled to approach the Dispute Resolution Board (DSB) for resolution of disputes first before invoking the jurisdiction of the court under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act especially when the DSB was not constituted as per terms of the contract and its composition was not even communicated to the Petitioner within the stipulated time period after the execution of the contract therefore seeking reference to the DSB when the petitioner approaches the court under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act cannot be accepted.
Case: Aftab Alam Vs. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 196
The Calcutta High Court has commuted a death sentence awarded to the petitioner for murder and dacoity to life imprisonment, and observed that judges should not be 'bloodthirsty' in such cases since sentencing someone to death would be an irreversible step that could not be undone even if new evidence were to surface.
Case Title: Tara Lohia Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 197
The Calcutta High Court stated that writ is not maintainable against officer's ITC finding made within jurisdiction. Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury stated that “Though, violation of principles of natural justice, and a challenge on jurisdictional issue can be maintained, such issue must, relate to an exercise of jurisdiction by an authority which it does not have, and not merely an error committed within its jurisdiction.”
Case Title: The West Bengal State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-54 Kolkata
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 198
The Calcutta High Court stated that interest earned on surplus lending funds is attributable to banking business, qualifies for 80P deduction under Income Tax Act.
Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides 100% tax deductions to cooperative societies for income from specified activities. These activities commonly include marketing agricultural produce, purchasing agricultural supplies, processing products without power, offering banking services, and more.
Case: MOONDUST PAPER PVT LTD. Vs VINAY SHAW AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 199
The Calcutta High Court has granted an order of injunction to Moondust Paper Private Limited, the owners of the trademark 'Captain Gogo' in a suit for infringement of the trademark by various entities.
In granting the prayers for injunction, Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur held:
"It is evident that the impugned products fall in the same category as of the petitioners and are also being sold through the same trade channels. In selling the impugned products, the respondents are acting in a fraudulent and dishonest manner. There is every attempt made to imitate not only the petitioner's name but also the copyright registration which is being enjoyed by the petitioner. Prima facie, there is every possibility of confusion and disruption among the public."
Case Title: ANIRBAN PAL VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 200
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and Smita Das De has held that a policy mandating that disabled persons remain posted at the same place even after promotion is binding, especially when framed under international obligations. A disabled person cannot be denied the benefit of such a policy even if reversion is sought by him under compelling circumstances.
Case Title: GLEN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 201
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that proceedings conducted by the Arbitrator between the expiry of the mandate and its subsequent extension cannot be declared void once the application seeking extension is allowed. Upon extension, the mandate relates back to the date of expiry.
Case: UBS Switzerland AG Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 202
The Calcutta High Court has held that though procedural fairness is vital in criminal trials, the application of Section 105 of the CrPC for the service on summons on persons resident outside India in criminal matters does not extend to the service of notice in revisional matters abroad.
Case: In the matter of: Paresh Paul & others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 203
The Calcutta High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Paresh Paul, a 79-year-old MLA, Paresh Paul, and two others belonging to the ruling political party of the State, accused in a post-poll violence death case after the Assembly Elections of 2021.
It was alleged that on 02.05.2021 in the afternoon, 7 or 8 unknown persons came to the house of the original de facto complainant and asked for the whereabouts of her son, the deceased victim. They alleged that the victim had occupied many rooms of the Railways. Altercations took place, and the miscreants started assaulting the informant. The younger son of the complainant was brutally assaulted and succumbed to his injuries.
Case: JAHANARA BIBI @ JAHANARA BEGAM @ JAHANARA MONDAL @ JANU - VERSUS – UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 204
The Calcutta High Court has held that an order of preventive detention becomes unconstitutional when it is weaponised to punish for earlier crimes, and continue custody of an accused even after bail had been granted by the courts.
A division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held:
"The legal distinction between preventive and punitive detention is well established. The former aims to forestall future prejudicial acts, the latter to punish past ones. Yet from the point of the detenu, the practical reality is the same: loss of liberty, separation from family, and confinement behind prison walls. Indeed, preventive detention, imposed without trial, can be more intrusive to personal liberty than punitive detention. This is why the Constitution and the statute subjects such orders to strict safeguards, and why the Supreme Court has cautioned that preventive detention must not be used as a convenient substitute for punishment under the ordinary criminal process. Where the real object is to incarcerate for past offences, or to continue custody despite a court granting bail, the order loses its preventive character and becomes unconstitutional."
Case: Subhash Chandra Paik @ Chandara
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 205
The Calcutta High Court has directed the state CID to investigate the murder of two men who were brutally killed in West Bengal's Khejuri.
Justice Tirthankar Ghosh held: “Having regard to the factum of instilling public confidence in an investigation both in respect of the manner of investigation process, the difference in the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeons and the fact that the incident happened simultaneously at the same place which raises a doubt after obtaining the second post-mortem report, I am of the opinion that it would not be safe to allow the investigation to be continued by the local police authorities of Khejuri Police Station. Accordingly ADG, CID, Bhabani Bhavan, West Bengal is hereby directed to engage an Officer in the rank of DIG, CID, West Bengal who would form a Special Investigating Team from the Homicide Section of the CID, for the purposes of investigation.”
Case: M/s. Xpro India Limited. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 206
The Calcutta High Court has held that an employee searching for another job with better pay or benefits, even with a rival company, does not amount to moral turpitude for the purpose of termination of employment.
Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul held: "Thus looking for another job, even if with a rival company (though, not proved in this case) with better perks and facilities is a basic right and does not constitute moral turpitude as it is not contrary to honesty, modesty or good morals."
Case: Ram Kishan Mittal Vs. The State of West Bengal.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 207
The Calcutta High Court has held that an accused cannot be summoned under section 91 of the CrPC to provide incriminating material against himself, which would be used against him in trial.
Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held: "It thus appears to this Court that from the series of reported decision as cited from the Bar it would reveal that it was never the legislative intent while enacting Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that court can summon an accused to produce any incriminating materials which may be used against him in trial."
Case Title: J.D. ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS PURBACHAL UDYOG
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 208
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that delivery of a certified copy of the award, signed by the members, when properly addressed, stamped, and sent by speed post with delivery confirmed by the postal department, amounts to effective service even if the original signed copy of the award is not dispatched.
The present application has been filed under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking a declaration that the award dated 10.11.2020 is non-est and unenforceable. It is further prayed that the execution proceedings should be stayed pending disposal of the application.
Case Title: The State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. M/S B B M ENTERPRISE.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 209
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that the court as an Executing Court retains jurisdiction to direct deposit of the remaining awarded amount along with interest before granting stay on the enforcement of the award, even if a stay order had already been passed upon filing an application to set aside the award, since modification of the conditions of the stay order is permissible
Case: In the matter of: Manali Ghosh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 210
The Calcutta High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a woman who was accused of abetting the suicide of her estranged husband, by her mother-in-law, after the husband hung himself over the wife's refusal to return to the matrimonial home.
In granting the plea, Justice Jay Sengupta held: "It will for the Courts to finally decide whether there is any element of abetment of suicide in this case. However, considering the materials available in the case diary and the alleged role attributed to the present petitioner, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in this case and I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner."
Case: RAJAN KUMAR PRASAD & ORS. Vs NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 211
The Calcutta High Court has directed the demolition of an additional tower constructed at the city's Elita Garden Vista housing complex, which had been constructed without the consent of the flat owners in the 15 towers, erected per the original sanction plan.
Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Ajay Kumar Gupta held:
"There is no alternative to demolition when an additional structure is constructed without the consent of the existing flat owners of the 15 towers. Further, the situation has leaned in favour of demolition of the 16th tower, given that the original sanction plan of 2007 permitted only the construction of 15 towers, based on which the aggrieved flat owners/appellants purchased their respective flats."
Case Name : The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs Bansi Badan Kole & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 212
A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J. and Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. held that in case of the continuing wrong creating a continuous source of injury due to delay on part of the State, the grant of pension upon condonation of deficiency in service is allowed.
Case: Tamal Dasgupta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 213
The Calcutta High Court has ordered the Ramkrishna Mission to appoint the petitioner, an Assistant Professor in English, who was being denied appointment despite being eligible, over some social media posts made by him, which were seen as against the ideology of the mission, claiming to be a 'minority institution.
Case: SAMPA GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 214
The Calcutta High Court has declined a plea by 'tainted candidates' in the SSC Recruitment process, embroiled in the cash for jobs scam, challenging the cancellation of their admit cards to appear in the re-examination ordered by the Supreme Court.
Case: The All India Matua Mahasangha & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 215
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation by the petitioners, seeking the cancellation of the caste certificates granted to the respondents, and for a CBI probe into the allegedly irregular grant of caste certificates by the state over the last 15 years.
Case: Dr. Hiralal Konar & Anr. Versus The State of West Bengal and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 216
The Calcutta High Court has quashed cases filed by a wife against her husband and in-laws, accusing them of cruelty under Section 498A the Indian Penal Code, and under various sections of the SC/ST Act and Juvenile Justice Act.
Case: Swami Vivekananda University & Anr. -versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 217
The Calcutta High Court has held that the objective of Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is to confer power to seek production of evidence deemed relevant for conducting of investigation, and which are not already on record.
Case Title: Amjad Hossain Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 218
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that once a Work Order is issued and the work is completed to the satisfaction of an authority falling under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it becomes mandatory for the authority to release the payment. Failing this, the Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, can direct the authority to release the amount to prevent a breach of the petitioner's rights.
Case: Federal Chatkal Mazdoor Union & Anr. Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 219
The Calcutta High Court has stayed a notification by the State's Labour department, disqualifying retired workers from holding offices in trade unions. The order was passed by Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul).
Case: In Re : XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 220
The Calcutta High Court has suspended the bail granted to a man accused under the POCSO Act, by the trial court, after finding that the bail had been granted without hearing the victim in the case.
Case Title: Gayatri Granites & Ors. VS. Srei Equipment Finance Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 221
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has held that a counterclaim in arbitration proceedings cannot be allowed after the commencement of the claimant's evidence, as doing so would cause serious injustice to the other party.
Case title: SANTANU MUKHERJEE v/s UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 222
The Calcutta High Court on Monday (September 8) dismissed a writ petition filed by the grandson of freedom fighter Gopal Chandra Mukherjee alias 'Gopal Patha' challenging the alleged despicable portrayal of his grandfather in director Vivek Agnihotri's latest film 'The Bengal Files'.
Case Title: VIJAY PRAKASH BOHRA VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 223
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi has held that a secured creditor can seek physical possession of an immovable property under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act even after the sale of that property to a purchaser.
Case Title: SUBRATA HAIT VERSUS INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 224
The Calcutta High Court bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) has held that compensation determined by the competent authority under Section 10(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rights of User in Land) Act, 1962 (the 1962 Act) shall be treated as a determination at the first instance when there is no agreement between the parties making such determination final and binding. Therefore, land losers cannot be prohibited from seeking enhanced compensation under Section 10(2) of the 1962 Act if they are aggrieved by the initial determination.
Case: Rubber Regenerating & Processing Co. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 225
On 08.09.2025, the High Court at Calcutta dismissed a writ petition challenging a 'Proprietary' tender floated by the Panipat Refinery of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) in the GeM portal.
Case: Sumanlal Kodialbail & Ors vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 226
The Calcutta High Court has held that the mere inability of a wife to adjust with her in-laws, leading her to live separately, does not amount to mental cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Case: Ratan Kumar Roy @ Ratan Kr. Roy VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 227
The Calcutta High Court has held that even in cases where the tenant alleges that the landlord had threatened him with unlawful eviction, the same cannot amount to the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case: Rinki Chakraborty Nee Das Vs. The State of West Bengal & anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 228
The Calcutta High Court has held that an able-bodied, young man cannot refuse to pay maintenance, citing financial constraints arising out of his unemployment.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held: "Therefore once there is no denial of the fact that the husband is an able bodied young man capable of earning, he cannot simply deny his legal obligation of maintaining of his wife equal to the status and strata. The mere fact that the petitioner/wife is earning some amount of money to survive, since she has been allegedly thrown out of her matrimonial home, cannot be a reason to deny maintenance, which is husband's social, legal and moral responsibility.
Case: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v SUNIL DAS@ HARI CHARAN DAS @ HARI BABA @ SWARUP ROY @ GURUDEV
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 229
The Calcutta High Court has commuted the death sentence imposed on an alleged 'Gurudev' for the murder of two women over alleged monetary disputes, after the appellant-Gurudev and his wife had promised certain cures to the deceased and their family, in exchange for large sums of money.
Case: Anirban Bhattacharya Versus The State of West Bengal & Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 230
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a plea accusing Bengali singer Nachiketa Chakraborty of hurting religious sentiments over a clip taken during one of his concerts, where he is seen to be making alleged objectionable remarks against Lord Ram.
Case Title: BEEVEE ENTERPRISES & ORS. VERSUS L & T FINANCE LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 231
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Arindam Mukherjee has held that while disposing of an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the Court is empowered under Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) to impose conditions and direct the respondent to furnish security for the loan as per the Agreement, even in the absence of a formal application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, since such a course does not contravene any of the provisions of the Act.
Case Name : Union of India and Others vs Anup Mondal and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 232
A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that the cancellation of a duly published selection panel by the Railway Authorities, without providing due notice to the selected candidates, is unsustainable in law. Authorities are bound to comply with RBE No. 192 of 2019 and Rule 228 of IREM Vol. I, which mandate prior notice before cancelling results. A selection panel can be scrapped only for well-founded reasons.
Calcutta High Court Orders Return Of Bengal Residents Deported To Bangladesh Within 4 Weeks
Case: Bhodu Sekh Vs. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 233
The Calcutta High Court has directed the return of West Bengal residents who were deported to Bangladesh by the Delhi Police upon suspicion of being Bangladeshi nationals.
Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra directed the return of the citizens within four weeks and held:
"The life style of the people shapes the profile of the law and not vice versa. Law cannot be disjuncted from context. The fundamental rights cannot be read as dull lifeless words. If an uncontrolled or unguided power is conferred without any reasonable and proper standards or limits being laid down in the enactment for guidance and control of exercise of such power, the act cannot by the furthest of imagination be construed to be a 'procedure established by law'. The executive cannot be vested with any non-fettered discretion. If officials exercise their public authority in an arbitral whimsical manner, the same would bring such act within the scope of prohibition of the equity clause."
Case: Bijoy Mukherjee & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 234
The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal government to take a decision within six weeks on the premature release of a convict, Bijoy Mukherjee, who was recommended for early release by the State Sentence Review Board.
The order was passed by Justice Om Narayan Rai on a petition filed by Mukherjee and another petitioner, alleging “undue delay” by the State authorities in acting on the Board's recommendation.
Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To Former Education Minister Accused In Recruitment Scam
Case: Partha Chatterjee v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 235
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to former state education minister Partha Chatterjee, accused in the multi-crore recruitment scam.
Justice Suvra Ghosh held: "The petitioner is in custody for more than a year. He has been granted bail in the E.D. case. He has not been interrogated by the investigating agency after 15th October, 2024. He is similarly circumstanced with coaccused Manik Bhattacharya who is on bail. Investigation is still continuing. There is little possibility of commencement/conclusion of trial in near future. It is trite law that incarceration of an under-trial should not amount to punitive detention...this Court is of the view that further detention of the petitioner is not justified and he may be released on bail subject to stringent conditions."
Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation Vs. AKA Logistics Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 236
The Calcutta High Court has held that a single petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) is maintainable challenging a composite arbitral award disposing of multiple references.
A bench led by Justice Shampa Sarkar held that “the Court does not hesitate to hold that the learned arbitrator and the parties understood the proceeding before the learned arbitrator arising out of five references, to be one composite proceeding and the learned arbitrator proceeded to pass a composite award. Thus, in the present case, though five distinct references were made, the learned arbitrator had chosen to dispose of all the references by passing one composite award at the suggestion of the parties. When a common award covers all the references, the challenge by way of a single petition is maintainable.”
Case Name : Yeshveer vs. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 237
A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Smita Das De held that past misconduct of an employee can be referred to in a charge-sheet to determine punishment without making the proceedings illegal.
Case Title:Best Eastern Business House Pvt Ltd. vs. Mina Pradhan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 238
The Calcutta High Court has held that when an arbitrator is appointed by the High Court under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), an application under section 29A(4) seeking extension of the mandate of the arbitrator can be entertained by the High Court only and not by the Principal Civil Court or Commercial Court having territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Case Name : Dean in Charge, ESI-PGIMSR & Ors. vs. Dr. Bijita Dutta & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 239
A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that the period spent on extraordinary leave for pursuing a super-specialty course does not count toward the mandatory teaching experience required for promotion.
Case Title: Cotton Casuals India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 240
The Calcutta High Court has held that property tax is a first charge on property and the auction purchaser is liable to pay property tax prior to sale.
The bench stated that where a statutory first charge is created on the property, such as in respect of property tax under Section 232 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the municipal authority is entitled to enforce such charge independently in accordance with the statutory mechanism provided therein. In such a situation, there is no inconsistency between the provisions of the IBC and the KMC Act, and, therefore, the overriding effect of Section 238 of the IBC is not attracted.
Case Name : Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dilip Kumar Verma & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 241
A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Smita Das De held that departmental proceedings instituted before retirement can validly continue under Rule 9(2) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, and punishment may be imposed even after superannuation for grave misconduct or negligence, irrespective of pecuniary loss to the Government.
Case Name: Power Tools and Appliances Co Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pinaki Roychowdhury & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 242
The Calcutta High Court bench presided over by Justice Aniruddha Roy, has observed that a civil court cannot grant an ex parte ad interim injunction in a shareholder dispute, in light of the bar under section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Case Name : Keya Kar vs. The State of West Bengal & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 243
A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that a cooperative society's decision to implement ROPA 2009 from August 2014 without arrears is valid, and it is not bound to grant benefits from January 1, 2006.
Case Name : Ivana Hossaini & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 244
A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya held that applying roster points separately to clear and anticipated vacancies is necessary to prevent anomalies and ensure fairness if anticipated vacancies did not materialize.
Calcutta High Court Quashes 15 FIRs Against BJP Leader Suvendu Adhikari, Lifts Bar On Fresh Cases
Case: Suvendu Adhikari Vs The State of West Bengal &Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 245
The Calcutta High Court recently quashed 15 FIRs lodged against BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari. The court also vacated an interim order which had barred the institution of fresh cases against Adhikari without the leave of the court. This decision comes only months before the West Bengal Legislative Assembly polls to be held in 2026.
Case Title: Koustav Bagchi v. The State of West Bengal and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 246
The Calcutta High Court has refused to quash a trial court order issuing summons to lawyer Koustav Bagchi, accused of uploading online parts of a book which claims that West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had married a person clandestinely and also discussed about her personal life.
Justice Apurba Sinha Ray rejected Bagchi's contention that the Public Prosecutor could not have filed a private complaint in the case, as it involved the personal life of the Chief Minister.
Case: CESC Sramik Karmachari Union & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 247
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), has quashed the notices dated 08.04.2025, 07.05.2025 and 29.05.2025 issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions, West Bengal, debarring retired employees from holding union posts, stating them to be in “complete violation of the said provision of the Act.”
Second Appeal Not Maintainable Under Trade Marks Act: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Dunlop's Appeal
Case Title: Glorious Investment Limited v. Dunlop International Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 248
The Calcutta High Court recently reaffirmed that a second appeal against a Single Judge's order is not permissible under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court clarified that once an appeal from an order passed by the Registrar of Trademarks is decided by a Single Judge, no further appeal can be filed before a Division Bench in view of the bar under Section 100A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
Case Title: Central Bank of India & Ors v Jay Kumar Goyal and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 249
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday held that the right to file a written statement is a statutory right and that this right cannot be denied merely for procedural lapses if the filing is otherwise within the time allowed by law.
A Single Bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy made the ruling while allowing several defendants in a commercial dispute involving the Central Bank of India to file their written statement on the very last permissible day.
Case Title: Berger Paints India Limited vs GPHP Holdings Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 250
The Calcutta High Court recently refused to revoke an earlier order that had exempted Berger Paints India Limited from undergoing pre-litigation mediation before filing a commercial suit against GPHP Holdings Pvt Ltd, a manufacturing company. The dispute related to the recovery of Rs. 1.01 crore for paints and coatings sold and delivered between February and June 2024.
Case: SUVENDU ADHIKARI VS HONBLE SPEAKER AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 251
In a major development, the Calcutta High Court, today, disqualified senior political leader Mukul Roy from the West Bengal Legislative Assembly over allegations of defection under the tenth schedule of the Constitution.
The Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md Shabbar Rashidi held that Roy's switch from the BJP to the Trinamool Congress after winning the 2021 Krishnanagar North seat on a BJP ticket squarely fell under the anti-defection law, terminating his membership of the assembly with immediate effect.
Case Name: Tata Steel Limited (formerly Tata Steel BSL Limited) vs. UOI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 252
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the disallowance of ₹165 crores of CENVAT credit on steel structures, parts, accessories, and cement as confirmed earlier by the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Calcutta High Court Cancels “JAY'S” Trademark, Citing Similarity to PepsiCo's “LAY'S”
Case Title: PepsiCo Inc v. Jagdamba Foods Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 253
The Calcutta High Court has recently ordered the cancellation of the registered trademark “JAY'S”, finding it phonetically identical and deceptively similar to PepsiCo's well-known potato chips brand “LAY'S”.
Juvenile Accused Can Seek Anticipatory Bail U/S 438 CrPC: Calcutta High Court
Case: Suhana Khatun and Others Vs. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 254
The Calcutta High Court has held that an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is maintainable even when filed by a juvenile/child in conflict with law.
The Court concluded that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act”) does not exclude the operation of pre-arrest bail provisions, and that denying such access would violate the child's fundamental right to personal liberty.
Case: Anikul @ Anikul Islam & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 255
A Larger Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that mere possession of Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN), regardless of quantity, does not automatically amount to “trafficking”, nor does it justify drawing any statutory presumption against the accused under Section 489B IPC. The Court clarified that mens rea remains central, and the prosecution must independently establish that the accused had knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the notes and intended to use, circulate, or traffic them.
Invention Requiring Destruction Of Human Embryos Not Patentable: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Shroff Geeta v. Asst. Controller Of Patents And Design
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 256
The Calcutta High Court on Monday upheld the Patent Office's rejection of a patent application on the grounds that the invention involved the destruction of human embryos and was therefore unethical and contrary to public order and morality.
A single bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, affirming the Patent Office's decision to reject the invention under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970, noted that Section 3(b) prohibits patents for inventions whose main use or commercial purpose is against public morals or safety, or could seriously harm humans, animals, plants, or the environment.
Case: Malay Bose Vs. Susmita Saha Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 257
Calcutta High Court (“High Court”) bench comprising of Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee set aside the West Bengal State Consumer Commission (“Commission”) order remanding the petitioner to ten days of judicial custody for failing to comply with directions to hand over the flat, execute the conveyance deed, refund the amount with interest and pay compensation to the homebuyer.
Case: Nitya Gopal Sarkar & Ors. Vs The Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 258
The Calcutta High Court has set aside a series of Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) orders rejecting joint options for higher pension submitted by employees of exempted establishments. Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that the EPFO acted contrary to Supreme Court rulings and relied on an “illegal” interpretation of Trust Rules to deny benefits.
Case: EDEN CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT LTD VS KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 259
The Calcutta High Court has held that a co-defendant cannot file a written statement in response to a counter-claim raised by another defendant, ruling that the CPC does not permit such inter se litigation within a single suit.
Cause Title: In the matter of Dilip Kumar Mondal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 260
The Calcutta High Court recently observed that the non-examination of independent witnesses, when they are admittedly present, casts doubt on the fairness and transparency of the investigation.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas made these observations while hearing an appeal against a conviction delivered by a Special EC Court. The appellant had been convicted under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹500.
Case: Flint Group India Pvt. Ltd. v. Sujay Lodha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 261
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking reference of a commercial suit to arbitration. Justice Aniruddha Roy held that since no written arbitration agreement exists between Flint Group India Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiff) and Sujay Lodha (defendant), the mandatory requirement under Section 7 of the Act is not satisfied, and therefore the suit cannot be referred to arbitration.
Case: ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS & ANR. VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 262
In a strongly-worded judgment, the Calcutta High Court has held the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) and other State authorities liable for “serious lacunae and negligence” leading to the death of four labourers and injuries to three others during a sewer-desilting operation in South Kolkata in February 2021. The Court directed payment of enhanced compensation as mandated by the Supreme Court and issued a series of compliance-oriented directions.
Case Title: Multireach Media Private limited & Anr Vs The state of West Bengal and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 263
The Calcutta High Court has held that where an adjudication order under the GST regime is uploaded on the GST Portal only under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab rather than the primary “View Notices and Orders” tab the resulting delay in filing appeal is to be condoned, considering that taxpayers cannot reasonably be expected to check multiple tabs for final orders.
Case: RANJIT SAHA VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 264
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a mother-in-law and brother-in-law under Section 498A IPC, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish any consistent or reliable evidence of cruelty or dowry harassment. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das delivered the judgment on November 24, 2025.
Case: MSC MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY S. A. AND ANR. VS NTC INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 265
The Calcutta High Court has held that service of a writ of summons on a company by speed post at its registered office constitutes valid service under Order XXIX Rule 2(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby triggering the mandatory 120-day period for filing a written statement under the Commercial Courts framework.
Justice Aniruddha Roy dismissed NTC Industries Limited's application seeking extension of time to file its written statement in a demurrage claim suit filed by MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. and another. Holding that the statutory deadline had long expired, the Court declared that the defendant had forfeited its right to file the written statement and directed that the suit shall proceed as undefended.
Case Title: RAKESH KUMAR JINDAL AND ANR. VERSUS ANOOP KUMAR JINDAL AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 266
The Calcutta High Court held that a partner cannot claim reimbursement of municipal tax payments through a post award petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) as such issue constitutes substantive monetary dispute requiring adjudication under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: Laxmi Ghosh v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 267
The Calcutta High Court has stated that IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) ITC (Input Tax Credit) declared in GSTR-9 can be set off against tax demand if missed in the monthly GSTR-3B.
Justice Om Narayan Rai bench observed that the appellate authority did not justify why the IGST ITC declared in GSTR-9 could not be set off against the tax demand.
Case Title: Rajneesh Agarwal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(2)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 268
The Calcutta High Court stated that the Income Tax Department cannot withhold a refund under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, unless it establishes tax liability.
The Bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that it is true that Section 245 of the said Act authorises the Income Tax Department to set off a refund against remaining tax payable. Unfortunately, in this case, the respondent has not been able to demonstrate that any amount is payable or is due from the assessee. Law does not sanction recovery of tax in the absence of any specific charging statutory provision.
Case: The Branch Manager, Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Sri Dulal Ch. Chandra & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 269
The Calcutta High Court has set aside concurrent findings of the District, State and National Consumer Commissions, which had held the Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank and the Jute Corporation of India (JCI) liable for deficiency in service in connection with jute-pledge loans availed by farmers.
Justice Debangsu Basak disposed of eight revisional applications filed by the farmers, the bank, and the JCI, holding that the consumer fora had committed errors in fixing liability on both entities.
Case Title: Shiv Kumar Saraf v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 270
The Calcutta High Court has held that proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated unless incriminating material relating to the assessee is found during a search and both the assessing officers (the Assessing Officer of the searched person as well as the Assessing Officer of the person other than the searched person) record the necessary satisfaction.
Case: THE WEST BENGAL BOARD PRIMARY EDUCATION AND ANR VS PRIYANKA NASKAR AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 271
The Calcutta High Court has set aside a single bench order which cancelled the appointment of around 32000 primary teachers in the cash-for-jobs TET-Recruitment scam case.
A division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra passed the order, setting aside a 2023 decision by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, presently a BJP Lok Sabha member.
Case Title: Chittaranjan Locomotive Works v. Arihant Electricals
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 272
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday dismissed Chittaranjan Locomotive Works' application for an unconditional stay of an arbitral award dated March 14th, 2024.
Justice Shampa Sarkar on 2nd December, 2025 ruled that the conduct of the parties and arbitrator and the award publication proceedings in Kolkata constituted “contrary indicia”, sufficient to displace Chittaranjan as the contractual venue.
Case Title: Y D Transport Company & Anr. v. SREI Equipment Finance Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 273
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday set aside an ex-parte arbitral award ruling that unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator by one of the parties is violative of the Principles of Natural Justice and fatally vitiates the arbitral process, thereby resulting in nullity.
Justice Shampa Sarkar in a judgement delivered on 2nd December, 2025, allowed the application filed by YD Transport Company and its proprietor under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Court unequivocally stated that such an appointment is “violative of principles of natural justice and offends the very concept of just and fair treatment of the parties in the proceeding”, finding that the tribunal's constitution offended Section 12(5) read with the 7th Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case: Sanjay Jhunjhunwala & Ors. Versus Piramal Finance Limited & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 274
The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday held that it cannot interfere with personal insolvency proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, holding that such proceedings must take their course before the National Company Law Tribunal.
A single bench of Justice Krishna Rao said the High Court could not halt a proceeding that falls within the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority.
Case: SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED VS BANK OF MAHARASHTRA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 275
The Calcutta High Court has rejected a suit filed by Senbo Engineering Limited seeking enforcement of an alleged “concluded” One-Time Settlement (OTS) with the Bank of Maharashtra, holding that a borrower cannot compel a bank to accept an OTS or seek specific performance of such a proposal.
Justice Aniruddha Roy held that OTS proposals have no statutory force, and a borrower cannot seek specific performance against the bank's commercial decision.
Case Title: Edible Products (India) Limited v. Shalimar Chemical Works Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 276
The Calcutta High Court has upheld an interim injunction in favour of Shalimar Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. that restrains Edible Products (India) Ltd., which sells coconut oil under the “KMP” brand, from using packaging the court found deceptively similar to Shalimar's long used trade dress.
A division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya in an order dated December 3, dismissed Edible Products' appeal. The court said that in a passing-off case the overall impression of rival products must be judged from the perspective of an average, uninformed consumer.
Case Title: Managing Director, Bihar State Power Generation Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. R S Construction & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 277
The Calcutta High Court, Commercial Division, dismissed a petition filed by the Managing Director, Bihar State Power Generation Co. Ltd. (BSPGCL) under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award passed in favour of R S Constructions.
Justice Gaurang Kanth, on 4th December, 2025, while upholding the finality of the arbitral award, ruled that the arbitral tribunal had adopted a “logical, reasoned and plausible” view while granting compensation for illegally stopped dismantling work at the Barauni Thermal Power Station in Begusarai, Bihar.
Case Name : Vukkem Rambabu Vs. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 278
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that the deputationist has no vested right to continue on deputation and can be repatriated at any time if conduct is unsatisfactory, provided that the procedure under DOPT OM 17.06.2010 is duly followed.
Case Name : The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Radhe Shyam Tripathi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 279
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty held that service rendered in a DA-getting school counted by the State for appointment in Government-aided Institution, must also be counted as qualifying service for pension.
Case Title: Sandhya Rani Jana and Anr. v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 280
The Calcutta High Court held that when a victim's income tax return is filed, it is a reliable and authentic basis for assessing income in motor accident claims. The bench granted compensation of Rs. 39 Lakh to the claimants (mother and father) of the victim
Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury stated that once an Income Tax Return is accepted by the Income Tax Authority, it becomes an authentic document with regard to the income of the victim.
Case: Santosh Srivastava @ Manu Srivastava v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 281
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the life imprisonment of a man convicted of repeatedly sexually assaulting a girl aged between 12 and 14 years.
The Court held that the victim's affection or “love affair” with the accused could not dilute the statutory protection granted to children or legitimise sexual acts committed against her.
Case Detail: Bidyut Autotech Private Limited and another v. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 282
The Calcutta High Court in a matter concerning non-disclosure of Cess in monthly return GSTR-3B which came to be rectified by filing annual return in GSTR-09, has set aside appellate order. The High Court has directed the Authority to revisit the matter and consider subsequent rectification in GSTR-09 of initial error of non-disclosure.
Case Title: Himadri Speciality Chemical Limited v. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4) & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 283
The Calcutta High Court held that reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is impermissible when it is based on the same survey material that the Assessing Officer (AO) has already examined and accepted in earlier proceedings.
Justice Om Narayan Rai stated that the reassessment proceeding is clearly impermissible………It would be a clear case of “change of opinion”. Indeed, the principle that assessment of a given assessee for a given assessment year cannot be reopened by the relevant Assessing Officer on the ground of change of opinion is usually applied in the case of the same assessee for the same assessment year but there is no reason why such a principle cannot be extended and applied to a case like the one at hand.
Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd.
Citationn: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 284
The Calcutta High Court has barred Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. from using two chyawanprash advertisements after holding that removing a single claim about ingredient count would not eliminate the overall disparaging portrayal of rival brands, including Dabur India Limited.
A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi delivered the decision on December 11, 2025, while hearing appeals arising from a February 8, 2022 order. Dabur had earlier secured an injunction against several Baidyanath promotional materials.
Case Title – Babai Sk. @ Papai Sk. Versus The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 285
The Calcutta High Court set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed on Babai Sk. @ Papai Sk. in a 2013 murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 326 of the IPC.
Case Title: Kommoners Club & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. VS. Pecon Software Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 286
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an award passed by the West Bengal Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC), holding that the petition was not maintainable and was filed to evade pre-deposit requirement under section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006.
Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya held that the Facilitation Council had jurisdiction to entertain the reference under section 18 and the buyer (Kommoners Club & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.) ought to have challenged the award under section 34 of the Arbitration Act subject to statutory deposit instead of invoking the court's supervisory jurisdiction.
Case Title: Cosmic MAPL JV Vs. Al-Amin Garments Haat Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 287
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a revisional application filed by Cosmic MAPL JV challenging the Commercial Court's refusal to extend the mandate of an arbitrator under Section 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
Justice Shampa Sarkar held that in cases where the referral court is the High Court under section 11, it also becomes the competent court to entertain applications for extension or substitution of arbitrators under section 29A.
Case Name : The Union of India & Ors. Vs Gandeti Vasudeva Rao (Ex Sep No.1396744-H)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 288
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising ACJ Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held that Invalid pension is payable for medical discharge regardless of minimum service of 10 years if the disability is permanent.
Case Title: M/s. JJ Traders v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 289
The Calcutta High Court held that CBIC (Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs) circulars are binding on departmental officers but cannot be used as a protective shield in cases where the genuineness of the transaction or invoices is in doubt.
Justice Om Narayan Rai stated that it cannot be doubted that a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs would be binding on all its officers but at the same time there can also not be any cavil to the proposition that a circular issued by the Board whether instructive or clarificatory or otherwise has to operate within the statutory framework and has to be applied only when there is no doubt raised regarding the genuineness of the consignment and the transaction and the documents are in order.
Case Title: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sabita Das & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 290
The Calcutta High Court has held that the mere presence of an alcoholic smell in the stomach of a deceased accident victim, as noted in the post-mortem report, cannot be a ground to deny compensation to the legal heirs under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury, while dismissing an appeal filed by The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., affirmed an award of compensation granted to the family of a deceased motorcyclist who died in a road accident involving a truck.
Employee Moving To Another Cadre Can't Later Claim Regular Promotion In Former : Calcutta High Court
Case Name : Balaram Naskar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 291
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that the employee who availed Career Advancement Scheme and subsequently left the cadre cannot claim regular promotion benefits granted later to Bhumi Sahayak cadre.
Case Title: Puspa Furniture Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 292
The Calcutta High Court held that the GST authorities do not have the power under Section 67 of the CGST Act to seal or seize cash. Accordingly, the bench directed the immediate de-sealing of Rs. 24 lakhs.
Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, grants tax authorities the powers of inspection, search, and seizure to prevent tax evasion and ensure compliance.
Justice Om Narayan Rai examined whether the GST authorities have the power to seize cash under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act.
Case Title: Veeline Holdings Private Limited v. Khetawat Properties Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 293
The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday refused to accept a written statement filed by a defendant in a commercial suit beyond the statutory timeline, holding that in the absence of a formal written application within 120 days of service of summons, the Court becomes functus officio and cannot extend time.
Justice Aniruddha Roy directed that the written statement deposited in the department pursuant to Registrar's endorsement dated August 6, 2025 be taken off the suit record and that the suit be treated as undefended.
Case: Tasaul Sk Versus The State of West Bengal & Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 294
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings, including charges of rape on false promise of marriage, cheating and offences under the Information Technology Act, against a man accused by his former partner after she got married to another person.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta allowed a plea filed by petitioner Tasaul Sk seeking quashing of Sessions Case No. 49/2021 arising out of Birbhum Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 03/2021 registered under Sections 376/417 IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act.
Case: Sri Sandip Pramanik Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 295
In a Public Interest Litigation alleging illegal construction within 500 metres of the Hooghly in Howrah, the Calcutta High Court on December 17 refused to dismiss the plea at the threshold but imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner for suppressing material facts regarding his antecedents.
A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen directed that the amount be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal, within 15 working days, to be credited to the Victim Compensation Scheme.
Case: Latika Ghose -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 296
The Calcutta High Court has ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over the probe into the alleged 2010 Jangipara police firing which resulted in the death of Trinamool Congress supporter Rabin Ghose, observing that successive police reports, including those by the State CID, appeared aimed at protecting the then Officer-in-Charge of Jangipara Police Station.
Justice Tirthankar Ghosh held that the investigation “failed to satisfy” the constitutional expectation of fairness under Article 21 and noted that the petitioner had alleged her husband was killed in a “false encounter”—a concern earlier recorded even by a coordinate bench.
Case: Helax Healthcare Private Limited Versus State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 297
“When it comes to blacklisting, the requirement becomes all the more imperative… it is the harshest possible action,” the Calcutta High Court stressed while setting aside a three-year debarment and forfeiture of performance bank guarantee imposed on Helax Healthcare Pvt Ltd for alleged supply of non-standard Telmisartan tablets.
Justice Krishna Rao held that the September 26, 2025 blacklisting order violated principles of natural justice since the Department never disclosed that such a penalty was proposed, nor shared the laboratory report relied upon.
Case Title: Shyamalmay Paul v. Assistant Commissioner SGST, Siliguri Charge, Siliguri & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 298
The Calcutta High Court held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied to a purchasing dealer merely because the supplier's GST registration was cancelled retrospectively.
Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that apart from holding that the invoice dates were after the effective date of cancellation of the registration certificate of the supplier in question, no other ground has been mentioned by the appellate authority as a ground for denial of Input Tax Credit.
Ex-Director Cannot Be Compelled To Represent Company In PMLA Case: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Suman Chattopadhyay v. Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 299
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a former director cannot be forced to represent a company in a money-laundering case after he has left the company.
Allowing a criminal revision petition filed by the former director of Dish Pruduction and Media Ltd, a bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee ruled that the prosecution has no power to decide who should appear on behalf of a company in court.
Case: Fabwarth Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. FIRE EVENTS and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 300
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an ad-interim injunction granted by the City Civil Court in a contractual dispute concerning the “GOLD” club operating from the basement of JW Marriott, Kolkata, holding that the Trial Court lacked territorial jurisdiction.
A Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya, hearing FMAT 495 of 2025 (Fabwarth Promoters Pvt Ltd v. Fire Events & Ors.), observed that since the business premises and contractual performance were located at JW Marriott, Tangra/Pragati Maidan Police Station, jurisdiction lay with courts at Alipore and not the City Civil Court at Calcutta.
Case: THE ASSAM COMPANY INDIA LIMITED VS NUMAZAR DORAB MEHTA AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 301
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that proceedings to calculate mesne profits can continue only against a company's former management once a resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Mesne profits refer to the claim arising from unlawfully occupying someone else's property. The court clarified that such proceedings cannot continue against the company itself or its new management after the resolution plan takes effect.
Case: The Orissa Minerals Development Company Limited Vs. Jai Balaji Industries Limited
Reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed two connected appeals under Section 37 filed by Orissa Minerals Development Company Ltd. (OMDC), upholding arbitral awards directing payment for excess procurement costs and loss of profits arising from stoppage of iron ore supplies to Jai Balaji Industries.
IBC Resolution Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Claims Left Open By NCLT: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: S.S. Natural Resources Pvt Ltd and Anr vs West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 302
The Calcutta High Court has clarified that approval of a resolution plan under insolvency law does not wipe out claims that were specifically excluded and left open by the tribunal at the time of approval.
A Division Bench of Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Supratim Bhattacharya, in an order dated December 8, 2025, dismissed an appeal filed by S.S. Natural Resources Pvt Ltd and upheld a demand for transfer fees raised by the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation for industrial land at Kharagpur.
Arbitration Clause In Expired Lease Cannot Be Invoked To Execute Fresh Lease: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Ltd vs HDFC Bank Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 303
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that an arbitration agreement in an expired lease deed cannot be automatically extended to govern disputes relating to the execution of a fresh lease, even if the proposed lease is claimed to arise from prior correspondence between the parties.
Justice Aniruddha Roy in an order dated 23 December, 2025, dismissed an application filed by HDFC Bank Ltd under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking reference of the dispute to arbitration in a commercial suit filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Case Name : MSTC Limited vs. Malay Sengupta and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 304
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Lanusungkum Jamir and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 does not override disciplinary rules allowing withholding or forfeiture of gratuity for pecuniary loss caused by employee negligence.
Provisions Of SC/ST Act Not Attracted When Alleged Abuse Is Hurled Over Phone: Calcutta High Court
Case No: In the matter of: Nurul Aras
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 305
The Calcutta High Court has observed that where caste-based abuses are allegedly hurled over the telephone and not in public view, the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would not be prima facie attracted, rendering an application for anticipatory bail under the special statute not maintainable.
Case Title: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Tapas Kumar Das
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 306
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that an arbitral tribunal does not have the authority to rewrite the terms of a contract, ignore its determinative clauses on notions of equity, fairness or public law principles. It said if the tribunal travels beyond the contract itself, it amounts to a jurisdictional transgression, rendering the award illegal.
Case Title: Department of Information Technology and Electronics, Govt of West Bengal vs Rolta Infrastructure and Technology Services Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 307
The Calcutta High Court has held that a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, seeking a stay on eviction notice in respect of immovable property would amount to a suit for land and is not maintainable if the property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court's original side.
Case Title: Bhaskar Gupta vs Calcutta Club Ltd & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 308
The Calcutta High Court has held that disputes alleging oppression of a member through an Extraordinary General Meeting are company law disputes that fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal. The court reiterated that these disputes cannot be examined by a civil court.
Case Title: Shree Shyam Steel Co. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST and Central Excise
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 309
The Calcutta High Court held that the law of limitation is not meant to extinguish substantive rights and must be applied with a liberal approach where delay is caused by bona fide conduct.
The bench condoned the delay of 2262 days in filing the CESTAT appeal, holding that the assessee's bona fide pursuit of settlement under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) was a valid ground and that condonation of delay could not be denied on such a basis.
GST | Stereo System In E-Rickshaw An Input, Calcutta High Court Grants Refund To Manufacturer
Case Name: Hooghly Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 310
The Calcutta High Court, in a matter concerning admissibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for purchase of 'stereo system' to be used in E-rickshaw, has granted Refund claim of Unutilized Input Tax Credit under inverted duty structure amounting to approximately ₹8 lakhs.
Case Title: Macmet Engineering Ltd. Vs. Mecgale Pneumatics Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 311
The Calcutta High Court has held that once arbitral proceedings are commenced before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (“Council”) under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006, a buyer cannot seek appointment of a separate arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") and therefore all claims including claims for damages by the buyer must be raised before the Council itself which then functions as the arbitral forum.
GST | Calcutta High Court Quashes Excess ITC Demand Pertaining To Initial Years Of GST Rollout
Case Name: Soumyendu Bikash Jana vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 312
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the order passed by Appellate Authority dismissing appeal against Section 73 demand, preliminary, “without appreciating the worth of the documents”.
Justice Om Narayan Rai observed that there was 'total non-consideration of material on record' upon tracing through the paper book as well as relevant documents annexed to the writ petition which were also placed on record before the Appellate Authority (AA).
Case Title: Asian Tea And Exports Limited -Vs- Priyanka Gupta And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 313
The Calcutta High Court has held that where an escrow agreement is intrinsically linked to or executed in furtherance of a share transfer agreement containing an arbitration clause, disputes arising out of such escrow arrangement are also arbitrable, even if the escrow agreement does not independently contain any arbitration clause.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi observed while allowing an appeal filed by Asian Tea and Exports Limited (“Appellant”) and setting aside an order passed by the Single Judge which had refused to refer parties to arbitration.
Case Title: Kessels Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs Neo Metalicks Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 314
The Calcutta High Court has held that where parties have already chosen a seat of arbitration before the first application is filed, the courts exercising jurisdiction over the seat alone will have jurisdiction over all subsequent applications, including those under sections 34 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") notwithstanding that earlier application may have been filed before another High Court.
Case Title: Rishi Chemical Works Private Ltd. Vs Enviro Cleanroom Projects Private Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 315
The Calcutta High Court has held that pendency of conciliation proceedings does not bar the grant of limited interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"), where such relief is essential to preserve the subject matter of the dispute.
Justice Gaurang Kanth held while allowing a Section 9 application filed by Rishi Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. (“Petitioner”), appointing a Special Officer to inspect, measure, and document the existing status of works and materials at a clean room laboratory set up by the respondent contractor.
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise Bolpur Commissionerate v. M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 316
The Calcutta High Court held that statutory interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act is not leviable where the entire transaction is revenue-neutral and the duty paid is available as Cenvat Credit to downstream units, causing no loss to the exchequer.
Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Uday Kumar stated that the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that the situation is revenue-neutral, inasmuch as the duty paid by the assessee was available as Cenvat credit to its downstream units and there is no net loss of revenue to the exchequer.
Case Title: Mark Steels Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Kolkata & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 317
The Calcutta High Court held that the mere reopening of an assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be treated as a change of opinion if the earlier proceedings were dropped due to lack of evidence.
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury stated that on the basis of a change of opinion of the assessing officer, a notice under Section 148 of the said Act cannot be issued. For a case of change of opinion to be established an assessing officer must arrive at an opinion that there has been no escapement of income on the ground noted therein.