Calcutta High Court Directs Probe Into Alleged Irregularities In Disability Scheme In Murshidabad After State Finds 13 Of 15 Certificates FakeCase: Suraj Sk. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 371The Calcutta High Court has directed the State authorities, particularly the investigating agency, to complete expeditiously the investigation into alleged...
Case: Suraj Sk. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 371
The Calcutta High Court has directed the State authorities, particularly the investigating agency, to complete expeditiously the investigation into alleged wrongful disbursement of funds under the Government Disability Allowance Scheme in the Samserganj area of Murshidabad.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee passed the direction.
Case: Mehebuba Khatun & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 372
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed two writ petitions filed by candidates participating in the Second State Level Selection Test (SLST), 2025, holding that they could not claim OBC-A/reserved category status after the Court had struck down the relevant OBC classifications before the recruitment process commenced.
Justice Aniruddha Roy held that the petitioners had no enforceable legal right to participate in the 2025 recruitment as OBC-A candidates.
Case: Falguni Maity @ Falguni Maity Samanta & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 373
The Calcutta High Court has held that an aspirant who participated in the Second SLST, 2025 selection process under the general category cannot subsequently seek conversion to the EWS category, particularly when the candidate did not possess an EWS certificate even within the cut-off date prescribed by the School Service Commission.
Justice Aniruddha Roy dismissed a writ petition filed by Falguni Maity, who sought permission to change her candidature from the general category to the EWS category after subsequently obtaining an EWS certificate.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Of Chandanpur Railway Station Hawkers From Railway Land
Case: Alok Chakraborty and others vs. Union of India and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 374
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the eviction of hawkers operating from railway land at Chandanpur Railway Station, holding that the Railway authorities are empowered under Section 147(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 to remove unauthorised occupants without first initiating proceedings under the West Bengal Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De dismissed an appeal filed by Alok Chakraborty and others, representing hawkers operating through the Chandanpur Bazar Railway Premises Shoppers Cooperative Society Limited.
Calcutta High Court Transfers Hate Speech Case Against TMC MP Mahua Moitra To MP/MLA Court
Case: Mahua Moitra v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citatiob: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 375
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the cognizance taken by a Krishnagar Magistrate in a complaint case against Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and directed that the proceedings be transferred to the designated Special Court dealing with cases against MPs and MLAs at Bidhannagar, North 24-Parganas.
A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Aryak Dutt passed the order on September 7 while disposing of Moitra's criminal revision petition challenging the cognizance taken in Complaint Case No. 309 of 2026.
Case: Sri Rajesh Banerjee vs. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 376
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held that an employee's confession in a preliminary enquiry report cannot justify dismissal from service without issuing a charge sheet and conducting a regular disciplinary proceeding.
The appellant was working as the Head Assistant of IFU, SWM-I, Br.-VIII at the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, now Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
Case: Biplab Saha & Anr. vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr.
Citatiob: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 377
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction of a developer and a property owner for raising an unauthorised four-storeyed building in a congested Kolkata lane, holding that actual structural collapse or post-facto forensic evidence is not necessary to establish an offence under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
Justice Uday Kumar dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by Biplab Saha and Shukla Das, who challenged their conviction for constructing a G+3 building at premises no. 26/D, Dr. Panchanan Mitra Lane, in violation of a sanctioned plan permitting construction only up to G+1.
Case: Anil Kaushik & Anr. vs. Sourabh Khemani
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 378
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an interim injunction restraining two defendants from sending emails to third parties containing allegations against the plaintiff concerning the management of a company, holding that courts must apply the “Bonnard Principle” with particular caution while considering interim injunctions in defamation suits.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De observed that an interim injunction in a defamation action cannot ordinarily be granted unless the Court is satisfied that the defence of justification by truth available to the defendant is certain to fail at trial.
Case: Arup Kanti Digar vs. Mitali Bag & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 379
The Calcutta High Court has held that the mere pendency of an election petition cannot justify the blanket retention of every EVM and VVPAT stored within a district, observing that preservation must be confined to electoral material specifically connected with the election or proceeding for which preservation is required.
Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay made the observation while permitting the District Election Officer, Hooghly, to identify and segregate EVMs and VVPATs stored in connection with the 29-Arambagh (SC) Parliamentary Constituency.
Case: Bhagirath Ghosh vs. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 380
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a sweetmeat shop owner in a 26-year-old food adulteration case, holding that the mere finding of “low fat content” in a sample of curd was insufficient to establish that the food was adulterated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) allowed the criminal revision petition filed by Bhagirath Ghosh, who had been convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia in 2000 and whose conviction was subsequently affirmed by the appellate court in 2004.
Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Extorting Over ₹21 Crore By Posing As ED Officer
Case: Sk. Jinnar Ali @ Jinnar Ali v. Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 381
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to Sk. Jinnar Ali, who is accused of extorting money from individuals by impersonating an Enforcement Directorate officer, observing that his prolonged incarceration and the pendency of the investigation into the predicate offences were mitigating circumstances.
Justice Jay Sengupta passed the order in a bail application arising out of a money laundering case.
Case: Sanjiv Kumar Dalmia vs. State Bank of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 382
The Calcutta High Court has directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to immediately defreeze a businessman's current account, holding that the Reserve Bank of India's guidelines on monitoring “Money Mules” do not specifically authorise banks to freeze accounts merely on suspicion.
Justice Krishna Rao observed that although banks are required to undertake due diligence and monitor transactions to identify accounts allegedly being operated as “Money Mules”, there was no material before the Court establishing that the petitioner had used his account for any fraudulent or illegal transaction.
Case: Dr. Saibal Adhikari & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 383
The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against a woman's in-laws, observing that the allegations against them were general in nature and that permitting the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by Dr. Saibal Adhikari, Sikha Adhikari, Swapna Banerjee and Narayan Chandra Dutta, seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of Belghoria Police Station Case No. 419 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC.
Divorced Wife Can Continue To Claim Maintenance If She Has Not Remarried: Calcutta High Court
Case: Samar Paul vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 384
The Calcutta High Court has held that an ex parte decree of divorce obtained by a husband does not, by itself, extinguish his statutory obligation to maintain his former wife if she has not remarried and is unable to maintain herself.
At the same time, the Court held that an unmarried daughter who had already attained majority before the filing of a Section 125 CrPC maintenance petition and was not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality could not claim maintenance under the provision.
Case: In the matter of: Humayun Kabir
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 385
The Calcutta High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Aam Janata Unnayan Party (AJUP) MLA Humayun Kabir in connection with a case registered at Rejinagar Police Station under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 152, observing that it did not find even prima facie ingredients of the offence under Section 152 and that there was no need for his custodial interrogation.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta passed the order on September 10 while hearing Kabir's application for anticipatory bail in connection with Rejinagar Police Station Case No. 219 of 2026.
Case: Divij Mercantiles Private Limited vs. Ashoka Hawai And Shoes Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 386
The Calcutta High Court has held that a suit seeking recovery of money advanced by a company cannot be summarily rejected at the threshold merely on the ground that the plaint does not expressly refer to a written agreement or mercantile document to establish that the dispute is commercial in nature.
Justice Aniruddha Roy observed that where the nature and character of the financial transaction pleaded in the plaint require factual examination, the issue of maintainability must be decided at trial and the plaintiff cannot be non-suited summarily if an arguable and triable case has been made out.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 387
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that the question of limitation arising in a property dispute could not be conclusively determined from the pleadings and documents at the threshold and required adjudication after the parties were given an opportunity to lead evidence.
Case: Asit Mazumdar v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 388
The Calcutta High Court has permitted the Trinamool Congress (TMC) to hold a meeting to be led by former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, instead of a proposed rally, after taking note of concerns regarding traffic congestion and inconvenience to local residents.Justice Saugata Bhattacharya permitted the meeting to be held between 1 PM and 3 PM with a maximum of 2,000 participants.