Merely Driving Car With Contraband Not 'Possession' Under NDPS Act, No Direct Nexus: Calcutta High Court Grants BailCase: Saw Herald vs The StateCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 204The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case, holding that mere driving of a vehicle from which contraband is recovered, without any recovery from the accused or prima facie material...
Case: Saw Herald vs The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 204
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case, holding that mere driving of a vehicle from which contraband is recovered, without any recovery from the accused or prima facie material showing control over the seized substance, does not amount to “possession” so as to attract the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya sitting at the Port Blair circuit bench observed that although the concept of possession under the Act is not confined to physical recovery from the person of the accused, there must at least be prima facie material indicating that the accused had control over the contraband, and merely driving a car from which recovery is made from a passenger does not satisfy this requirement.
Case Title: Saw Timothy v. State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 205
The Calcutta High Court has cautioned the State authorities against delaying the release of accused persons despite the grant of bail, observing that such conduct undermines personal liberty.
A Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Smita Das De was dealing with a habeas corpus plea alleging continued detention despite bail.
Recording a strong word of caution, the Court observed: : “On every occasion when an accused obtains bail, he/she should be immediately released and cannot be compelled to come to Court every time by filing Habeas Corpus petitions.”
Case: Augustine Ballava vs State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 206
The Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) has granted bail to a 52-year-old cultivator accused of cultivating cannabis plants, holding that the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted to offences under Section 20(a) in the absence of any commercial quantity. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, while allowing the bail application, observed that the statutory rigours imposing a reverse burden and stricter standards for bail would not apply in such cases.
Case: Arindam Ghosh Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 207
The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with the acceptance of a candidate's nomination during the ongoing election process, holding that such disputes must be agitated through an election petition after the polls.
Disposing of a writ petition filed by an independent candidate from the 117–Rajarhat Gopalpur Assembly Constituency, Justice Krishna Rao observed that “if any order is passed, the same will amount to interference with the election process,” and therefore declined to exercise writ jurisdiction at this stage.
Case: The Lieutenant Governor & Ors. v. Dharam Raj
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 208
The Calcutta High Court has held that an appointing authority is not precluded from imposing the penalty of dismissal merely because it also functions as the appellate authority, so long as a higher forum of appeal is available in the administrative hierarchy. Setting aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Smita Das De restored the dismissal of a government employee, observing that the Tribunal had erred in law despite upholding the findings on merits.
“Cannot Maintain Double Standards”: Calcutta HC Pulls Up Centre For Selective Compliance Of Court Order Over Andaman DRMs Regularisation Row
Case: Case: Union of India & Ors. v. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Mazdoor Sangh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 209
The Calcutta High Court has held that the Union Government cannot selectively comply with a binding judicial decision by implementing one part of it while resisting the rest on the ground of “policy,” in a case concerning regularisation of Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
Deciding an appeal in Union of India & Ors. v. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Mazdoor Sangh & Ors., a Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Smita Das De upheld the direction to consider the 2023 regularisation scheme, coming down heavily on the Centre's conduct.
Case: Union of India & Ors. v. Shri Yohannan Sajeevan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 210
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the striking down of a recruitment rule that exempted certain in-service candidates from possessing minimum educational qualifications for promotion, holding that such relaxation was arbitrary, violative of UGC norms, and amounted to granting a “premium to illegality.” Dismissing a writ petition filed by the Union of India and the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, the Court affirmed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had invalidated Note-3 of the Recruitment Rules dated October 4, 2022 and directed consequential action.
Case Title: Sukanta Chattopadhyay vs. Kakali Bhattacharya
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 211
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a criminal defamation proceeding against a school Headmaster, holding that allegations relating to salary withholding, harassment, or disciplinary action—without any imputation lowering a person's reputation in the eyes of others—do not constitute an offence under Section 500 of the IPC.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that “if the moral or intellectual character of the person concerned is not lowered in the estimation of others, simply making of imputation… cannot per se lead to commission of offence of defamation,” emphasizing that reputational harm is a sine qua non for invoking criminal defamation.
Case Title: Subhadeep Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 212
The Calcutta High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a father accused of assaulting his minor son during a court-ordered visitation, holding that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged and were inherently improbable.
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute where the petitioner had been granted visitation rights to meet his six-year-old son at the court premises.
Case Title: Shantanu Moitra & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 213
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a criminal case under Section 498A IPC against a husband and his aged mother, holding that in the peculiar facts of the case, taking away a child from the mother for his welfare could not amount to “mental cruelty.”
Deciding a revision petition, Justice Apurba Sinha Ray set aside the trial court's order refusing discharge and held that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
Case: Mansur Ali @ Mansur Seikh @ Mansur SK @ Machuur Ali V. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 214
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to an accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, holding that prolonged pre-trial detention with little progress in trial violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray allowed the appeal filed by Mansur Ali @ Mansur Seikh @ Mansur SK @ Machuur Ali, who had been in custody for over two years and eight months, observing that “he cannot be kept in incarceration indefinitely without convicting him when nobody can tell when the trial will end.”
Case: JYOTIRMOY BISWAS -VS- STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 215
The Calcutta High Court has clarified that a spouse's earning capacity cannot be ignored even at the ad-interim stage, setting aside a maintenance order granted to a qualified doctor without examining her financial status in light of the disclosure norms mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha.
Justice Uday Kumar was hearing a criminal revisional application filed by a husband challenging an ex-parte ad-interim order directing him to pay ₹12,000 per month to his wife and ₹8,000 towards maintenance of their minor daughter under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Case: BIKASH CHANDRA PAUL VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 216
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a husband under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC in a 1994 suicide case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of abetment or cruelty beyond reasonable doubt. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted the appellant, observing that there was “no direct act or incitement to the commission of suicide” attributable to him.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by the deceased woman's brother, who alleged that his sister had been subjected to sustained physical and mental torture by her husband and his sister, culminating in her death by hanging in her matrimonial home. The trial court had convicted the husband in 2009, sentencing him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 IPC and three years under Section 498A IPC. Aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court.
Case: Sampa Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 217
The Calcutta High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a Bangladeshi Hindu woman accused of overstaying in India without a valid visa under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, holding that whether she qualifies for statutory protection as a victim of religious persecution can only be determined at trial.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that although the Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025 grants protection to persecuted minorities from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan who entered India on or before December 31, 2024, the burden lies on the accused to establish entitlement to such exemption.
Case Title: Xenixt Technologies Private Limited & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 218
The Calcutta High Court has held that bank accounts cannot be frozen merely on the basis of complaints received through the Ministry of Home Affairs' cybercrime portal, without any order from a competent court under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Justice Krishna Rao directed the immediate defreezing of the accounts of Xenixt Technologies Private Limited after finding that neither the bank nor the authorities could show any judicial order authorising the freezing action.
Case Title: Overseas Scrap Trading Corporation vs Howrah Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 219
The Howrah Municipal Corporation cannot indefinitely withhold execution of a sale deed in favour of the highest bidder merely because the State Government failed to grant approval, the Calcutta High Court has held, while directing completion of a land sale process pending since 2010.
Justice Shampa Sarkar observed that the statutory powers of the municipal corporation under the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act could not be curtailed by an undisclosed cabinet decision or subsequent government policy, particularly when no statutory rules mandated prior approval from the State.
Case: Meena Gupta Vs. Union of India and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 220
The Calcutta High Court has held that a Public Interest Litigation challenging alleged violations of the Forest Rights Act in connection with the Great Nicobar infrastructure project is maintainable, rejecting the Union Government's objection that the petitioner lacked locus standi because she is a resident of Hyderabad and not of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen observed that there can be “no thumb rule” regarding locus standi in PILs and that courts must permit genuine public causes concerning vulnerable communities to be raised even by persons not directly affected.
Case Title: Moniza Farooquee & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 221
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a married sister-in-law and her husband in a dowry harassment case, holding that vague allegations of “instigation” against relatives living separately for over a decade cannot sustain prosecution under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.
Justice Uday Kumar observed that the tendency to “rope in” distantly residing relatives through omnibus allegations amounts to abuse of criminal process and warned that matrimonial litigation cannot be converted into a tool of harassment.
Case Title: Gautam Dey v. Golam Saharia
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 222
The Calcutta High Court has held that criminal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is strictly personal to the drawer of the cheque and cannot be inherited by legal heirs or business associates after the drawer's death.
Justice Uday Kumar quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a man whose deceased brother had allegedly issued a cheque towards repayment of a ₹27 lakh loan.
Case Title: Md. Shams Biswas @ Tapan Biswas v. United Bank of India (now Punjab National Bank)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 223
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the premature retirement of a former Senior Manager of the erstwhile United Bank of India after taking note of his allegations that sustained caste-based discrimination at the workplace compelled him to renounce Hinduism and embrace Islam.
Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay observed that constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15 and 25 are “not ornamental declarations but enforceable mandates,” and stressed that no adverse administrative consequence can be predicated upon an individual's choice of faith.
Case Title: Shreya Basak & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 224
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a woman and her father accused of abetting the suicide of her husband, observing that remarks questioning a man's “manhood” or refusal to continue a matrimonial relationship, by themselves, do not constitute abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held that there was no material showing any direct instigation, intentional aid, or positive act on the part of the accused which could have driven the deceased to take the extreme step.
Case Title: Manindra Nath Mishri v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 225
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of a man for murdering his wife by strangulation, holding that the medical evidence, “last seen” circumstances, and proof of a strained marital relationship arising out of the husband's alleged extramarital affairs formed a complete chain pointing to guilt.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay dismissed the appeal filed by Manindra Nath Mishri against his conviction under Sections 302 and 498A IPC in connection with the death of his wife at their matrimonial home in Haldia in June 2013.
Case Title: Arnab Dam v. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 226
The Calcutta High Court has refused to suspend the sentence of alleged Maoist leader Arnab Dam, convicted in the 2010 Silda EFR camp attack case in which 24 security personnel were killed, observing that injured eyewitnesses are likely to remember the faces of attackers involved in “such a major terrorist attack.”
A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray rejected Dam's plea for suspension of sentence pending appeal, noting the “exceptional gravity” of the offences and the prima facie incriminating evidence against him.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Misconduct Finding Against SAIL Employee For Encroaching On Company Land
Case Title: Debnath Swarnakar v. The Steel Authority of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 227
The Calcutta High Court has upheld disciplinary proceedings initiated against a Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) employee for unauthorized use and encroachment of company land, while partly granting relief by setting aside the punishment insofar as it imposed reduction of pay “with cumulative effect”.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held that the employee's act of constructing a brick wall structure and fencing over SAIL land amounted to “misconduct” under the company's standing orders.
Case: Sirsanya Bandopadhyay Vs. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 228
The Calcutta High Court has issued interim directions to the State Police, asking them to ensure the safe return of persons who were allegedly displaced from their shops, homes or properties, regardless of political affiliation, in PILs against alleged post-poll violence in the wake of the 2026 West Bengal Assembly election results.
Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held, "The police shall also ensure that if any citizen irrespective of his/her party affiliation, is illegally thrown out of his shop/house/property etc. due to post poll violence, he/she shall be given a safe return to his shop/house/property etc."
Case: Sahidul Laskar Vs. The General Manager, Eastern Railway & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 229
The Calcutta High Court has passed an interim order staying all proceedings pursuant to the impugned eviction notice issued in relation to the Brace Bridge railway station area until 20 May 2026 or until further orders. The writ petition was moved on behalf of nearly 6,000 slum dwellers residing in the locality adjacent to Brace Bridge Railway Station.
Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya held: "Whether the procedure prescribed under the relevant statute for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question has been followed or not, also has to be examined. Since an accommodation has been sought for by the learned advocate representing the respondent authorities, this Court is inclined to pass an interim order for a limited period. There shall be an order of stay of operation of the notice dated May 9, 2026 till May 20, 2026 or until further order whichever is earlier."
Case: Md Yasmin v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 230
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday restrained further demolition of a Tiljala building where a fire in a leather goods manufacturing unit claimed two workers' lives earlier this week, while simultaneously prohibiting any business activity from the premises until further orders.
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury passed the interim order in a writ petition filed by residents of the premises at Tiljala, who challenged the demolition drive initiated by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation following the May 12 fire incident.
Case Title: Goutam Saha & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 231
The Calcutta High Court has held that even after a criminal revision is finally disposed of, the High Court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to permit compounding of an offence where a subsequent change in circumstances creates a statutory right to compound the offence.
Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that although courts ordinarily become functus officio after pronouncing final judgment, “the doctrine of functus officio will yield to justice for which law exists,” particularly where the offence becomes compoundable only after the High Court alters the conviction from a non-compoundable offence to a compoundable one.
Case Title: Deepak Kumar v. Airports Authority of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 232
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging cancellation of candidature in an Airports Authority of India recruitment process after the candidate failed to submit the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) certificate for the financial year specified in the recruitment notification.
Justice Amrita Sinha held that a recruiting authority cannot be compelled to accept documents contrary to the conditions prescribed in the recruitment notice and observed that “it is not open for a job aspirant to direct the recruiting authority for prescribing conditions for holding the recruitment process.”
Case Title Shayan Sachin Basu v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 233
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the recruitment notifications issued for the West Bengal Judicial Service Examinations, 2023 and 2024, which allegedly omitted the mandatory requirement of three years' practice as an Advocate for entry-level judicial posts.
While refusing to interfere with the ongoing recruitment process, the Court directed the authorities to ensure that future judicial service examinations are conducted in compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling in the All India Judges Association v. Union of India case mandating three years' practice at the Bar for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts.
Case Title: Bonoshree Hazra @ Mollah v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 234
The Calcutta High Court has held that a Muslim man cannot evade payment of maintenance to a Hindu woman who married him after allegedly converting to Islam merely by disputing the validity of the marriage, so long as the marriage has not been declared void by a competent court.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das restored an interim maintenance order in favour of a woman and her minor son, observing that depriving them of maintenance at a preliminary stage despite prima facie proof of marriage and paternity would amount to “gross illegality.”
Case: Jaiprakash Gupta vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 235
The Calcutta High Court has refused to entertain an appeal filed by a husband, against a single bench order, seeking to avoid taking back his medically incapacitated wife from a private hospital, observing that the plea was nothing but an attempt to “abandon her” and evade his “moral, humanitarian and legal obligations”.
A division bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta directed that the woman, Poonam Gupta, who has remained admitted at Apollo Multispeciality Hospitals Limited since September 2021 following an accident, be escorted back to her matrimonial home with police assistance.
Case: Amal Dhabal vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 236
The Calcutta High Court has acquitted an Army officer convicted for rape on the allegation that he established a physical relationship with a woman on a false promise of marriage, holding that the relationship, which began after the parties met on Tinder, was consensual and continued voluntarily for over three-and-a-half years.
A Division Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray held that there was no evidence to show that the accused never intended to marry the complainant from the inception of the relationship. The Court consequently set aside his conviction under Section 376(1) IPC.
Case Title AKHRUZZAMAN VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. and batch
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 237
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday refused to stay the West Bengal government's notification regulating cattle slaughter ahead of Eid-ul-Azha, holding that the May 13 notification merely implemented earlier unchallenged directions issued by the Court itself in 2018.
However, in a significant direction, the division bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen ordered the State to amend the impugned notice by expressly incorporating that slaughter of animals, including cows and buffaloes, in open public places is strictly prohibited and that “sacrifice of a cow is no part of the festival of Id-Uz-Zoha and is not a religious requirement under Islam,” as decided by the Supreme Court in Hanif Quershi v State of Bihar.
Case: Asim Kumar Paul v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 238
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the removal of a railway employee from service after holding that the departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution were founded on substantially identical allegations, evidence and circumstances, and that his subsequent acquittal in the criminal case rendered the disciplinary findings unsustainable.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen allowed the writ petition filed by Asim Kumar Paul, a former Senior TNC/NH employee of the Railways, and directed the authorities to release all retiral benefits to him on a notional basis as if he had retired normally upon superannuation.
Case: Pratap Digal Vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 239
The Calcutta High Court has acquitted a Serampore College professor who had been convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the “foundational facts” necessary to invoke the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray observed that the trial court had “straightway” invoked the presumption under Section 29 without properly analysing whether the prosecution evidence was reliable and free from “blemishes and anomalies.”
Case: Indradevi Sonkar Versus Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 240
The Calcutta High Court has held that while unauthorised constructions cannot be protected from demolition, the constitutional right to shelter under Article 21 requires authorities and private developers to ensure the rehabilitation of occupants displaced by such illegal construction.
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury passed the order while hearing a plea by a tenant residing on the fifth floor of a G+5 building in Howrah, where the additional fourth and fifth floors were allegedly constructed without sanction.
Case: Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited v/s. Enforcement Directorate, Government of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 241
The Calcutta High Court has quashed money laundering proceedings against Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited, holding that the Enforcement Directorate cannot prosecute an entity for laundering “proceeds of crime” when the CBI, after a full-fledged investigation into the predicate offence, found no material showing its involvement in the alleged criminal activity.
Justice Suvra Ghosh observed that the ED had primarily relied upon the statement of a co-accused recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, without any independent material establishing the company's involvement in money laundering.
Case: Emon Roy Vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 242
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of deliberately running over and killing a stray dog, holding that the materials on record failed to establish the “mens rea” or criminal intent necessary to attract offences under Sections 428 and 429 IPC and Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Justice Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that the incident, at best, appeared to be “an unfortunate road accident involving a stray animal” and that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of court.
Case: KALINATH SASMAL VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 243
The Calcutta High Court has held that criminal courts cannot adjudicate interim possessory rights over immovable property while exercising powers under the Police Act, 1861, observing that disputes concerning title, succession and possession fall exclusively within the domain of civil courts.
Justice Kausik Chanda set aside orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the appellate court which had directed handing over of keys and interim possessory control of a Kolkata property to a claimant asserting himself to be the deceased owner's son.