Calcutta High Court Directs Police, Customs To Stop Unauthorised Sale Of Pets At North Kolkata's Galiff StreetCase: Court on its own motionCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 404The Calcutta High Court directed the Kolkata Police, Customs authorities and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, West Bengal, to take effective steps to stop unauthorised sale and trading of birds, pets, fish, plants...
Case: Court on its own motion
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 404
The Calcutta High Court directed the Kolkata Police, Customs authorities and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, West Bengal, to take effective steps to stop unauthorised sale and trading of birds, pets, fish, plants and other animals at Galiff Street in North Kolkata.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge and Justice Arijit Banerjee passed the directions while hearing a suo motu PIL concerning smuggling and illegal trading of endangered species.
Case: Milan Pradhan v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 405
The Calcutta High Court recorded the State's submission that five out of six cases challenged by Congress Nandigram bypoll candidate Milan Pradhan had been closed and that he was not an accused in the remaining case, relating to developments dating back to 2007.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya recorded the submission while hearing Pradhan's plea seeking protection from coercive action. On the issue of his participation in the election, the Court orally told the State, “Let him contest...Provided he gets bail.”
Case: Md. Nazibuddin @ Tulu Mondal v. State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 406
The Calcutta High Court refused to interfere with a non-bailable warrant and subsequent proclamation issued against Md. Nazibuddin alias Tulu Mondal.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya held that the fact that the accused had left India before registration of the FIR rendered insignificant his contention that he had not been given reasonable time to evade arrest. The State also placed before the Court a report stating that the accused had left India on May 23, 2026.
Case: M/s S.A. Printers & Anr. v. CESC Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 407
The Calcutta High Court refused to direct CESC Limited to provide an electricity connection to a printing press operating from a building declared unsafe and liable to demolition.
Justice Om Narayan Rai was hearing a writ petition filed by M/s S.A. Printers and another, who claimed to be tenants at the premises and had sought an electricity connection for their printing press.
Case: Arpit Mangal & Anr. v. Emami Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 408
The Calcutta High Court set aside an ex parte injunction restraining social media influencer Arpit Mangal and his company from publishing or displaying a video concerning Emami Limited's “Zandu Ashwagandha Gold Plus”.
A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De held that the defence of truth was prima facie available to the appellants and observed that the Bonnard principle governing pre-trial injunctions in defamation cases was applicable in India.
Case: Tumpa Pramanick v. Samit Pramanick
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 409
The Calcutta High Court held that a father's obligation to maintain a major child who was unable to maintain himself due to physical or mental abnormality did not automatically cease when the child attained majority.
Justice Uday Kumar made the observation while dismissing a criminal revision petition challenging continuation of maintenance proceedings concerning the petitioner's major son, who had 70% to 75% orthopaedic disability.
Case: Rashid Aktar Hussain v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 410
The Calcutta High Court held that the percentage of disability of a candidate possessing a valid Unique Disability ID card could not be reassessed by a Medical Assessment Board or Appellate Authority for determining eligibility for reservation under the PwBD category in NEET-UG admissions.
Justice Amrita Sinha held that the quantum of disability, once assessed and certified by the competent authority under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and reflected in the UDID card, had to be treated as final.
Case: Milan Pradhan v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 411
The Calcutta High Court granted protection to Congress Nandigram bypoll candidate Milan Pradhan in another case arising from 2007, after the State informed the Court that Pradhan had been shown arrested in a fresh case.
The matter was heard by Justice Saugata Bhattacharya. The development came after the Court had, on September 22, recorded the State's submission concerning the status of six old cases involving Pradhan.
Case: State of West Bengal v Milan Pradhan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 412
A Division Bench led by Chief Justice RV Ghuge set aside protection granted by a Single Bench to Congress Nandigram bypoll candidate Milan Pradhan in connection with a 2007 case.
The Division Bench directed Pradhan to proceed in accordance with law and apply for regular bail, observing that if he wanted relief, he would have to approach the bail court under law.
Calcutta High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Dhrubajyoti Bose In Durga Puja Land Extortion Case
Case: In the matter of re: Dhrubajyoti Bose
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 413
The Calcutta High Court granted anticipatory bail to Dhrubajyoti Bose in a case registered at Tala Police Station, observing that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate the statutory requirements for invoking Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita concerning organised crime.
Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee noted that Section 111 BNS was not an ordinary provision concerning cheating, extortion or land grabbing but dealt with organised crime. The Court found no material showing that a charge-sheet had been filed against Bose during the preceding ten years, as required under the provision's definition of “continuing unlawful activity.”