Nominal IndexS.K.M. Timber Private Limited v. Superintendent of Central Tax, Burrabazar Division, Kolkata North CGST & CX Commissionerate and others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 1Shri Manoj Kumar Verma v. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 2Sajal Dutta v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 3Equate Petrochemical Company K.S.C.C. v....
Nominal Index
S.K.M. Timber Private Limited v. Superintendent of Central Tax, Burrabazar Division, Kolkata North CGST & CX Commissionerate and others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 1
Shri Manoj Kumar Verma v. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 2
Sajal Dutta v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 3
Equate Petrochemical Company K.S.C.C. v. Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGRT) & Anr. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 4
SMITA BAJORIA VS RCTC ASSOCIATION AND ORS Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 5
Ravindra Pratap and another vs Reserve Bank of India and others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 6
OCV Intellectual Capital LLC v. The Controller General Of Patent Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 7
Union of India & Ors. vs. Mita Saha Karmakar Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 8
Dr. Soma Mandal Debnath v. Sri Tanmoy Debnath Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 9
Suranjan Mandal @ Suranjoy Mandal v. State of West Bengal & Anr. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 10
Piyali Sarkar vs. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 11
Basudeb Bagchi & Anr. v. Enforcement Directorate Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 12
Ratan Karmakar & Ors. v. Smt. Chaina Das & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 13
Bikash Rath & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 14
Jagannath Heights Pvt Ltd v. M/S Sammaan Capital Limited Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 15
Debanjan Guha v. State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 16
Jhantu Sarkar v Union of India Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 18
Basudeb Bagchi v ED Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 19
Nishikanta Hawladar & Soumen Mondal v State of West Bengal Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 20
Humayun Kabir vs. State of West Bengal Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 21
Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt Ltd v Archana Debnath Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 22
BABULAL JADAB v STATE Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 23
Sri Sri Dodhimohan Jew v The State of West Bengal Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 24
Lt. Gen. Dr. Subrata Saha v Union of Indian and Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 25
Child in conflict with law v The State of West Bengal Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 26
New Parijat Co-operative Housing Society Limited v Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 27
Atasi Ghosh v State Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 28
ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS
Case Title: S.K.M. Timber Private Limited v. Superintendent of Central Tax, Burrabazar Division, Kolkata North CGST & CX Commissionerate and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 1
The Calcutta High Court held that a GST registration cancellation order is unsustainable where the personal hearing is granted by one authority, but the final order is passed by another.
Justice Om Narayan Rai stated that, interestingly, while the notice for personal hearing was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Burrabazar Division, but the order impugned has been passed by the Superintendent. The order therefore defies the very well-settled principle that an order must be passed by the authority that hears the parties or that one who hears must decide.
Case Title: Shri Manoj Kumar Verma v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 2
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that forfeiture of earnest money deposit (EMD) under the Railway e-auction framework cannot be sustained merely on the ground of an inadvertent or clerical mistake in uploading documents, unless the authorities first record a finding that the bidder acted with an intent to mislead.
Holding that forfeiture is penal in nature and entails serious civil consequences, Justice Smita Das De quashed the Railways' decision to forfeit ₹7,45,321 from the petitioner, observing that such action must satisfy the tests of proportionality, fairness and mens rea.
Case Title: Sajal Dutta v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 3
The Calcutta High Court held that the RBI (Reserve Bank of India) is empowered under the FERA (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973) to permit allotment of shares to an NRI against the import of second-hand capital equipment on a non-repatriation basis.
Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Supratim Bhattacharya stated that the RBI, while allowing the permission, also relied upon the Government of India letter dated 03.01.1994 wherein the Central Government issued policy directive that in such a case, as arose for consideration herein, where the amount is directly paid by the NRI for importing second-hand capital goods, the investment was permissible only on a non-repatriable basis.
Case Title: Equate Petrochemical Company K.S.C.C. v. Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGRT) & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 4
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a petitioner's mere apprehension of business loss in West Bengal is not enough to invoke the court's territorial jurisdiction in a writ petition.
A single-judge bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai, while dismissing a plea filed by a Kuwait company said that it is the infringement of a legal right that gives rise to a cause of action.
"The lis before this Court is only with regard to the violation of the petitioner's right to fair treatment and fair adjudication based on the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and not with regard to the petitioner's apprehension of loss of business in West Bengal. In such a view of the matter, the petitioner's apprehension cannot form the basis of the writ petition in West Bengal", the bench said.
Case: SMITA BAJORIA VS RCTC ASSOCIATION AND ORS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 5
The Calcutta High Court has restrained the Royal Calcutta Turf Club (RCTC) and its office-bearers from giving effect to a supplementary development agreement dated September 20, 2025, holding that the plaintiff-member had made out a strong prima facie case of non-transparency and material alterations to the project without adequate disclosure to members.
Justice Arindam Mukherjee found that the so-called “supplementary” agreement was prima facie not a mere continuation of the earlier 2022 development agreement, but introduced substantial changes in the nature and character of the project, ownership and developer allocations, security deposit terms, and even the composition of the developer LLP. The Court noted that one of the LLP partners had exited, yet the agreement was executed and registered during the pendency of earlier litigation involving the same developer.
Bank Can't Freeze Company's Accounts Solely Over ROC's 'Management Dispute' Tag: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Ravindra Pratap and another vs Reserve Bank of India and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 6
The Calcutta High Court has held that a bank cannot freeze a company's accounts merely on the basis of a “management dispute” marking by the Registrar of Companies (ROC), particularly after such marking has been removed on the directions of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA).
Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya made the observation on January 5 while hearing appeals filed by Ravindra Pratap Singh, director of August Agents Limited, challenging the freezing of the company's bank and demat accounts by Axis Bank in June 2021.
Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Patent Office Order Rejecting US Company's Glass Fibre Patent
Case Title: OCV Intellectual Capital LLC v. The Controller General Of Patent
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 7
The Calcutta High Court has set aside a Patent Office order rejecting a patent application filed by OCV Intellectual Capital LLC, a subsidiary of Owens Corning. The court held that the refusal was passed without proper analysis of novelty and inventive step.
A single-judge bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, in a judgment dated January 6, 2026, held that the Patent Office rejected the application without engaging with the technical submissions made by the company or recording clear reasons explaining how the invention was covered by prior art.
Case Name : Union of India & Ors. vs. Mita Saha Karmakar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 8
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held that a divorced daughter is entitled to family pension if she was dependent on the pensioner and that divorce proceedings were initiated during the pensioner's lifetime.
Case Title: Dr. Soma Mandal Debnath v. Sri Tanmoy Debnath
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 9
The Calcutta High Court has held that a husband maligning his wife at her workplace, questioning her chastity and abusing her before colleagues, amounts to mental cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage.
A Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya observed that public humiliation, character assassination, and professional defamation inflicted by a spouse strike at the core of an individual's dignity and mental peace, and cannot be brushed aside as trivial marital discord.
Case Title: Suranjan Mandal @ Suranjoy Mandal v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 10
The Calcutta High Court has held that abusing a person by calling them by their caste name, such as “Adivasi” or “Santhal”, in a place within public view, with the intent to humiliate, can amount to an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 341, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, observing that the allegations disclosed the essential ingredients of the offences and warranted a full-fledged trial. The Court clarified that at the quashing stage, it cannot conduct a roving inquiry into the truthfulness or reliability of the allegations, and that a trial is necessary to uncover the truth.
Case Name : Piyali Sarkar vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 11
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that disobedience of a lawful order by a member of a disciplined force like CISF constitutes misconduct regardless of prior intimation of non‑compliance.
Case: Basudeb Bagchi & Anr. v. Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 12
The Calcutta High Court has rejected the regular bail plea of Prayag Group directors Basudeb Bagchi and Avik Bagchi in a money laundering case involving alleged defrauding of thousands of investors to the tune of over ₹2,862 crore, holding that the gravity of the offence, their status as proclaimed offenders, and the existence of massive untraced proceeds of crime disentitle them from any relief under Section 45 of the PMLA.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar observed that economic offences involving public money form a “class apart” and must be viewed through a stricter judicial lens, particularly where the life savings of common citizens are involved. The Court emphasised that white-collar criminals cannot be allowed to treat the law with disdain and that personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be examined in isolation from the collective interests of defrauded investors.
Case Title: Ratan Karmakar & Ors. v. Smt. Chaina Das & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 13
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that a landlord is the best judge of his own residential and business requirements and that courts cannot dictate how a person should live or prescribe a particular standard of accommodation. Dismissing a second appeal filed by a tenant, the Court upheld a decree of eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
Justice Sugato Majumdar, while affirming the judgment of the First Appellate Court, observed that the concept of “reasonable requirement” cannot be approached with a rigid or hyper-technical mindset, as such needs vary from family to family, time to time, and situation to situation.
Case: Bikash Rath & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 14
The Calcutta High Court has set aside a directive issued by the Election Commission of India (EC) that sought to requisition employees of Balageria Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. for duties in connection with the upcoming West Bengal Legislative Assembly elections, 2026. The petitioners, employees of the autonomous cooperative bank, challenged the communication dated 19th September 2025, which required their details to be uploaded on the EC's portal for the preparation of the election personnel database.
Case Title: Jagannath Heights Pvt Ltd v. M/S Sammaan Capital Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 15
The Calcutta High Court recently rejected a Master's summons application filed by M/s Samman Capital Limited, that sought stay of a commercial suit on the grounds of an existing arbitration clause.
Master's summons under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) refers to a court order (summons) compelling a party to appear, often to provide documents or information relevant to an insolvency proceeding or specific case issues.
Promotion Can Be Deferred If Disciplinary Appeal Is Pending: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Debanjan Guha v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 16
The Calcutta High Court has held that an employee does not acquire an indefeasible right to promotion merely by securing a high position in the merit list, and that promotion can be legitimately deferred if a statutory disciplinary appeal is pending consideration.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by a senior employee of the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (WBSIDCL), Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee ruled that the Selection Committee was justified in keeping the petitioner's promotion in abeyance until the disciplinary proceedings reached their logical conclusion.
Case Title: Sri Jibananda Pal v Sanjukta Biswas
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 17
The Calcutta High Court has directed a fresh local investigation in a long-pending property dispute after finding deficiencies in the manner in which an earlier Advocate Commissioner's report was prepared and accepted by the Trial Court.
The bench of Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury observed,
"Right to property although not a Fundamental right but is a Constitutional Right. A person has right to use and enjoy property lawfully occupied by him without interference by others. Hence when a dispute arises with regard to encroachment of property and interference in the peaceful use and occupation of such property and adjudication of such dispute depends upon measurement of suit property and the report of the commissioner, such report should be clear and specific so that it becomes easy for the Court to arrive at a decision upon considering the said report".
Case Title: Jhantu Sarkar v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 18
The Calcutta High Court, on Wednesday (January 21), dismissed the petition filed by an aspirant of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) challenging the review medical examination that declared him unfit for service.
The bench held that while a candidate has a right to review, the removal of a tattoo after the detailed medical examination but before the review medical examination, to be declared medically fit, is impermissible.
Case Title: Basudeb Bagchi v ED
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 19
The Calcutta High Court has rejected the bail applications of Prayag Group's directors, observing that they failed to discharge the twin condition test under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and their status as proclaimed offenders.
While hearing the bail applications, the division bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar also emphasized,
"the liberty of an individual cannot be viewed in isolation from the collective interests of thousands of defrauded investors. The petitioners' failure to discharge the "Twin Conditions," coupled with their conduct as Proclaimed Offenders, creates a formidable legal barrier to their release".
Case Title: Nishikanta Hawladar & Soumen Mondal v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 20
The Calcutta High Court, on Thursday (January 22), suspended the conviction of two men under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, noting that the Raiding Officer/ Office making inventory had mixed the seized contraband packets even though the law does not authorise the same.
The bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray observed,
"There is no material to show when and how the said 80 packets were mixed up and who ordered for such mixture. This goes against basic duties of the Raiding Officers/Officers making inventory to classify and make separate arrangements for seized contraband items. The Law does not allow the seizing or the Officer making inventory to mix up the seized contrabands".
Case Title: Humayun Kabir vs. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 21
The Calcutta High Court permitted Bharatpur MLA Humayun Kabir, a former member of Trinamool Congress who has floated his own political party, to approach the Union Ministry of Home Affairs seeking Z+ security.
Notably, Kabir founded the Janata Unnayan Party last year.
Kabir had submitted that he was a member of West Bengal Legislative Assembly under the banner of the ruling political dispensation and has presently formed his own political party. He said he apprehends threat to his life and property and seeks deployment of police personnel, preferably of Z+ category for his protection.
Case Title: Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt Ltd v Archana Debnath
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 22
The Calcutta High Court has upheld a trial court's Court's interim injunction order restraining Kolkata-based publishing house Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt Ltd from printing, publishing, selling, or distributing the literary and artistic works of the late eminent author and cartoonist Narayan Debnath till February 9.
In doing so the court said that the author's widow as executor of Debnath's Will and plaintiff no. 2 i.e., their son as legatee of the Will are completely entitled to maintain the suit before the trial court, even before Probate is granted under Indian Succession Act.
Case Title: BABULAL JADAB v STATE
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 23
The Calcutta High Court has directed the Judicial Department to reconsider the plea for premature release of a life convict incarcerated for 32 years, observing that the rejection was merely speculative.
The division bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray emphasized that jails were renamed 'correctional homes' to reform offenders and reintegrate them into mainstream society. However, if release has to be denied even after 32 years incarceration, it reflects that State has failed to discharge its obligation.
Third Party Suits In Deity's Name Permitted Only When 'Sebait' Loses Authority: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Sri Sri Dodhimohan Jew v The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 24
The Calcutta High Court has held that a third party may institute proceedings in the deity's name only in exceptional circumstances where the lawful sebait has lost or disabled himself from exercising his authority.
The division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya observed,
"Only in exceptional circumstances, where the sebait does not or by his own act, deprives himself of the power of representing the deity, a third party is competent to institute a suit in the name of the deity to protect the debottar property".
Case Title: Lt. Gen. Dr. Subrata Saha v Union of Indian and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 25
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday (27 January) directed the West Bengal government to hand over by March 31, the land along Indo-Bangladesh Border (IB) in nine districts which it has acquired, to the Border Security Force (BSF) for the purpose of fencing.
The directions were issued by the Division bench comprising Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen while considering a public interest litigation filed by a former Deputy Chief of Army Staff highlighting large stretches of the Indo-Bangladesh Border remaining unfenced in West Bengal.
Case Title: Child in conflict with law v The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 26
The Calcutta High Court has quashed proceedings initiated under the Juvenile Justice Act against a child driving a four-wheeler with a blue beacon and a dashboard sign reading "judge", after noting that the inquiry had remained inconclusive beyond the four months prescribed under Section 14(2) of the JJ Act.
The bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed,
"The consequence of the failure to adhere to the provisions as laid down in section 14(2) is mentioned in section 14(4) of the Act as quoted above. In the instant case charge sheet was filed beyond the period of 4(four) months and even after the extended period which expired on 27.05.2024 (i.e. 6 months since the first appearance of the delinquent juvenile before the Juvenile Justice Board) the inquiry as stipulated under section 14(2) of the Act remain inconclusive as the plea of the delinquent juvenile had not been recorded till the granting of the stay by this High court on 12.07.2024. Therefore it is clear that in the instant case within the maximum time frame for conclusion of inquiry as mentioned in section 14(4), inquiry has not been concluded".
18-Months Delay In Pronouncement Of Judgment Alone Not Ground To Set It Aside: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: New Parijat Co-operative Housing Society Limited v Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 27
The Calcutta High Court, on Thursday (January 29), dismissed an appeal challenging a Single Bench judgment on the ground that it was delivered about 18 months after the date of conclusion of the final hearing.
The division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya observed;
"...although we are somewhat disappointed at the long delay of more than 18 months from the conclusion of the arguments to the delivery of the impugned judgment, we are unable to set aside the same solely on the ground of such delay".
Calcutta High Court Orders Creche Facility In Court Premises To Become Functional Within 30 Days
Case Title: Atasi Ghosh v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 28
The Calcutta High Court, on Thursday (January 22), directed its registry to ensure that creche facility in the court premises becomes operational within 30 days.
The bench also directed the PWD to ensure two doctors and one nurse report to the High Court Administration one day prior to the opening, and that the aluminium grills that need to be fixed on the creche windows are fixed within stipulated timeframe.