Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 14 To September 21, 2026
Srinjoy Das
22 Sept 2026 6:57 PM IST
Case: Rabindranath Saha v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 389
The Calcutta High Court expressed concern over the lack of an access road to two schools in South 24 Parganas, observing that students were being forced to wade through marshy land to reach a newly constructed school building for midday meals.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty directed the State to file an affidavit explaining the situation and listed the matter for further hearing.
Case: Archana Agarwal v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 390
The Calcutta High Court upheld a two-year sentence imposed on a building owner for carrying out unauthorised construction under a municipal permit that was limited to reconstruction of the roof of an existing two-storeyed structure.
Justice Uday Kumar held that permission for “reconstruction of roofs only” could not authorise demolition of the existing structure and construction of a fresh multi-storeyed building. The Court also upheld the fine and demolition direction.
Case: Sukhendu Banerjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 391
The Calcutta High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct a preliminary enquiry into allegations concerning completely unauthorised multi-storeyed buildings in Kolkata and the alleged flow of money into their construction and sale.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty also directed the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Commissioner to prepare a roadmap identifying the unauthorised buildings to be demolished and specifying timelines for the demolition.
Case: Pritilata Gharami & Ors. v. Bikash Sardar & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 392
The Calcutta High Court criticised the administration for stopping demolition of an unauthorised construction after the period granted to the occupants for voluntarily removing the structure had expired.
The Division Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee observed that the authorities could not have discontinued the demolition process when a Constitutional Court had directed demolition.
Case: Angurbala Mondal v. The State of West Bengal & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 393
The Calcutta High Court held that police were not the appropriate authority to decide whether dairy farms were being operated in accordance with law or whether their operation was causing health hazards.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya directed the petitioner, who had complained about neighbouring dairy units, to approach the West Bengal Pollution Control Board for adjudication of the dispute.
Case: Shri Rajender Kumar Dudeja v. High Court at Calcutta & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 394
The Calcutta High Court held that a disciplinary enquiry report prepared by a sitting High Court Judge in his administrative capacity was not a judicial order and therefore did not require consideration by a larger Bench.
Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra observed that the Judge who prepared the report had acted in an administrative capacity and that the enquiry report was merely a finding by an enquiry authority, not a judicial pronouncement.
Case: All India Trinamool Congress v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 395
The Calcutta High Court set aside an order directing the All India Trinamool Congress to vacate the sixth and seventh floors of its Camac Street office over alleged fire safety violations.
Justice Krishna Rao held that the authorities had passed the evacuation order without considering the party's reply to the fire safety notice and without conducting a fresh inspection after the alleged shortcomings were addressed.
Case: Prince Bansal v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 396
The Calcutta High Court held that an amicable settlement of matrimonial disputes followed by dissolution of marriage through mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act could constitute a valid ground to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC.
Justice Uday Kumar observed that where the matrimonial dispute had been completely settled and the parties had obtained a mutual consent divorce, continuation of the criminal proceeding would serve no useful purpose.
Case: Court on its own motion
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 397
The Calcutta High Court termed the alleged tampering of a Court order sheet by a lawyer “extremely shocking”, observing that such conduct amounted to professional misconduct and posed a threat to the discipline, dignity and sanctity of the judicial institution.
Justice Suvra Ghosh was hearing a contempt application concerning incorporation of the name of an alleged contemnor into an order sheet instead of correcting the cause title of the application.
Case: Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Tapas Roy & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 398
The Calcutta High Court held that driving a vehicle without a driving licence could not by itself be a ground to deprive a victim or the victim's family of compensation when death or injury was caused by the rash and negligent driving of another vehicle.
Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury made the observation while disposing of appeals concerning a compensation award.
Case: Sukumar Mondal v. Union of India, General Manager, South Eastern Railway
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 399
The Calcutta High Court held that mere negligence by a passenger while boarding or de-boarding a train could not be treated as a “self-inflicted injury” so as to deny compensation under Section 124A of the Railways Act.
Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury allowed the appeal filed by Sukumar Mondal and directed the Railways to pay compensation.
Case: Tapan Panda & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 400
The Calcutta High Court held that a university could not forcibly evict alleged unauthorised occupants from its quarters with police assistance without following due process of law.
A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De was hearing an appeal by retired employees of Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya against a notice requiring them to vacate university quarters.
Case: Smt. Aparna Das & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 401
The Calcutta High Court directed the Child Welfare Committee to return custody of a three-year-old child to a couple who had been caring for him since shortly after his birth, holding that the child was neither “orphan” nor “abandoned”.
Justice Krishna Rao held that the child did not fall within the statutory category of children in need of care and protection under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Case: Abhishek Kapoor v. Kabir Suman; Bittu Chowdhury v. Kabir Suman
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 402
The Calcutta High Court quashed criminal defamation proceedings against Republic Media Network Senior Executive Editor/Editor-in-Chief Abhishek Kapoor and reporter Bittu Chowdhury arising from a telephonic conversation with singer Kabir Suman.
Justice Uday Kumar held that continuation of the complaint amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
Case: Pravin Kumar v. ITC Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 403
The Calcutta High Court upheld an interlocutory injunction in ITC's “Gold Flake” trademark dispute, holding that an action for passing off and trademark infringement remained maintainable against a registered permitted user where the validity of the registration was disputed.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya observed that ITC had established a strong prima facie case that the word “Gold” in “Gold Flake” had acquired a distinct secondary meaning through extensive commercial use.
