LiveLaw Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: September 2026
Srinjoy Das
5 Oct 2026 10:41 AM IST
Case: Maruti Suzuki India Limited & Anr. vs. Vijaynath Jha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 367
The Calcutta High Court quashed criminal proceedings against Maruti Suzuki India Limited and its CEO arising from allegations concerning an alleged defect in the power steering of a Celerio ZXI MT.
The Court held that the allegations disclosed, at best, a consumer dispute and did not make out the ingredients of cheating or criminal conspiracy.
Relationship In Nature Of Marriage Can Attract Cruelty Provision U/S 498A IPC: Calcutta High Court
Case: Sk. Azharuddin @ Akash vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 368
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a plea seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 498A, 420 and 384 IPC, holding that the absence of a formally valid traditional marriage does not, at the threshold, preclude prosecution for cruelty in a relationship in the nature of marriage.
Justice Uday Kumar observed that a “flawless, legally unassailable marriage” cannot be treated as an indispensable prerequisite where the materials disclose a marriage-like domestic arrangement and allegations of cruelty.
Case: X v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 369
The Calcutta High Court upheld the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal's decision setting aside an ICC report against a Deputy Superintendent of Police, holding that a complaint under the POSH Act must be filed within three months of the last actual incident of sexual harassment.
The Bench held that an employee's apprehension that she might face harassment again after seeing the DSP at her workplace did not constitute a fresh incident for extending the limitation period.
Case: Nemai Ghosh v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 370
The Calcutta High Court awarded ₹5 lakh compensation to a patient who suffered loss of vision following cataract surgery at a government hospital, holding that the State cannot escape liability for medical negligence committed by its hospitals.
The Bench noted that the patient, an electrician and sole earning member of his family, had suffered monetary loss and loss of future prospects following the complications.
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.
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.
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.”
Case: West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee v ECI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 414
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee challenging alleged discrepancies in the election affidavit of Bharatiya Janata Party's Nandigram bypoll candidate Hasirani Rath.
Case: Indian Secular Front v Election Commission Of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 415
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the Indian Secular Front (ISF) challenging the allotment of the “Envelope” election symbol to the Ritabrata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress Democratic (TMC-D) for the upcoming Nandigram Assembly by-election.
Case: SRI KALLOL KANTI SAHA AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 416
The Calcutta High Court has directed the police not to permit a club to organise Durga Puja at the common area of a G+3 residential building in Kolkata in the absence of permission from the Flat Owners Association or individual flat owners.
Case: TUMPA BISWAS ALIAS TUMPA ROY VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 417
The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with an FIR alleging fraudulent procurement and use of a Scheduled Caste certificate, holding that there was no express statutory bar on lodging a police complaint in such a case.
Case: Jhantu Sarkar - Versus - The Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 418
The Calcutta High Court has flagged that the recruitment medical guidelines prescribe healing periods for certain disabilities but are silent on the healing period for a superficial burn caused by removal of a tattoo, directing an independent Medical Board at AIIMS Kalyani to examine a BSF recruitment candidate on the issue.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Removal Of Govt Bank Officer Accused Of Diverting ₹40 Lakh From Account
Case: Sudip Mandal Vs. Bangiya Gramin Vikas Bank And Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 419
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the removal from service of an officer of Bangiya Gramin Vikas Bank who was found guilty in a departmental proceeding of diverting ₹40 lakh from a bank account, holding that the officer failed to establish that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in wilful violation of an earlier court order.
