- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Calcutta High Court
- /
- Calcutta High Court Quarterly...
Calcutta High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March, 2025
Srinjoy Das
14 April 2025 7:45 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEXMahabuba Rahaman & Ors. -vs- State of West Bengal & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 1Milan Mukhopadhyay @ Mukherjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 2Jagbir Singh Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 3Association for Protection of Democratic Rights vs State of West Bengal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 4X...
NOMINAL INDEX
Mahabuba Rahaman & Ors. -vs- State of West Bengal & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 1
Milan Mukhopadhyay @ Mukherjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 2
Jagbir Singh Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 3
Association for Protection of Democratic Rights vs State of West Bengal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 4
X v Y Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 5
Chaitali Roy (Mandal) v. State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 6
Smt. Gitarani Maity -vs- 1A. Mrs. Krishna Chakraborty and othersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 7
X v Y Case No: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 8
Commissioner Of Service Tax Kolkata Vs M/S Electrosteel Castings Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 9
Afzal Khan @ Fazo @ Afjal Khan & Anr. Versus Siddhartha Kanjilal, WBCS (Exe), Principal Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 10
BHARAT KUMAR MISHRA VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 11
GOVERNMENT AIDED TEACHERS AND NONTEACHING STAFF WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANR. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 12
Sri Man Mohan Kumar Shahu vs. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 13
Bimal Chandra Sarkar & Anr. vs. Smt Dipali Dutta Roy (Paul) Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 14
Versatile Construction vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 15
Haldia Development Authority Vs M/s. Konarak Enterprise Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 16
Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Union of India Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 17
Zarin Momim Khan @ Zareen Khan Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 18
Vishva Hindu Parishad, Dakshinbanga & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 19
Asa International India Microfinance Ltd. v. Northern ARC Capital Ltd. & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 20
Chaitali Roy (Mandal) v. State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 21
ASSOCITATION FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS(APDR) AND ANR VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 22
Dilip Kumar Choudhury & Ors. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Durgapur, EPFO & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 23
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
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS SANJAY ROY Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 26
X vs Y Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 27
In Re : Putul Ghosh Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 28
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 13 Kolkata Vs Champalal Omprakash Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 29
Mr. Shuvendra Mullick -Vs- Mr. Indranil Mullick and others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 30
X v Y Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 31
Dipak Mishra Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 32
Haldibari Tea Manufacturers LLP & Anr. Versus Mahindra Tubes Limited & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 33
Shri Debasish Choudhury -versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 34
In Re : Narayan Dey & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 35
Madusree Ghosh & Anr. Vs. The state of West Bengal and another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 36
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SOUTH CITY PROJECTS (KOLKATA) & ANR. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 37
Delwar Sk. @ Delwar Seikh Vs. The State of West Bengal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 38
Kalpataru Projects International Limited vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL) Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 39
M/s. Stesalit Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 40
Sourav Paul Versus State of West Bengal & Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 41
M/s N.C. Construction v. Union of India Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 42
Ashok Sharma v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 43
Airports Authority of India & Ors. vs. Provash Besai & Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 44
SREI Equipment Finance Limited v. Whitefield Papermills Ltd. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 45
Swarnakshar Prakasani Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 46
Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Union of India & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 47
A K GHOSH AND COMPANY AND ORS. VERSUS BIMAN BOSE AND ORS. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 48
TAPAS PAL VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 49
Union of India v. Rahul Kumar Thakur Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 50
ILEAD FOUNDATION Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 51
Karur Vyasa Bank v. SREI Equipment Finance Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 52
IIM Calcutta v Union of India Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 53
State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. M/s. S.K. Maji Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 54
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS VERSUS SAUMAJIT ROY CHOWDHURY Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 55
BISWAS ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 56
Aiswarya Rajya Rai & Ors. -Vs.- The Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta Service Through the Learned Registrar General & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 57
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
M/s Exchange and Others v. Pradip Kumar Ganeriwala and Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 59
Rajiv Mondal @ Rajib -Vs.- The State of West Bengal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 60
Sk. Monikul Hossain VS. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 61
NCLT Advocates Bar Association, Kolkata Bench & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 62
BLACK DIAMOND RESOURCES AND ANR. VS INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 63
Rabindra Bharati University & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 64
Hooghly Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Sk. Alam Ismail & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 65
M/s. Great Sports Tech Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 66
ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS
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 "