Prior Option To Work As Para Teacher Shouldn't Act As Deterrent, Calcutta HC Permits To Work As Samprasarak For Better Service BenefitsCase: Mahabuba Rahaman & Ors. -vs- State of West Bengal & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 1A 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...
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
Case Title: M/S. Sauryajyoti Renewables Pvt.Ltd. Vs VSL Re Power Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 67
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that a composite reference of disputes to arbitration arising out of distinct purchase and service orders can be made when the conduct of the parties demonstrates that they were all part of a single business transaction.
Case Title: SRI SWAPAN PAUL VS M/S. PAUL CONSTRUCTION
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 68
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that when a claim is ex facie time-barred and no trial is needed to determine whether it is barred by limitation, the referral court can refuse to refer the matter to arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
Case: DEEPAK BHARGAVA & ORS. VS. JAGRATI TRADE SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 69
Case Title: M/S GREENBILT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS M/S A B DINESH CONCRETE PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 70
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that an arbitration clause in a memorandum of understanding that was not finalized, as indicated by the correspondences between the parties, cannot serve as the basis for initiating arbitration proceedings.
Case: SMT. NAZREEN BANU AND ANOTHER v THE ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 71
The Calcutta High Court's circuit bench at Port Blair has come to the aid of a NEET candidate who had not been issued a scheduled tribe certificate for the upcoming entrance examinations, even after being considered eligible for an ST certificate by the authorities.
Justice Aniruddha Roy held: The law on the subject prescribe that several factual factors are required to be considered to decide whether an individual can be considered as Scheduled Tribe or not. Merely because only either of the father or mother being non-tribal, one cannot be denied, the Scheduled Tribe certificate.
Case: Anjani Putra Sena Versus State of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 72
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a plea by the Anjani Putra Sena, seeking to carry out a 'Shobha Yatra Utsav' on the occasion of Ram Navami in Kolkata.
Justice Tirthankar Ghosh allowed the plea after imposing a slew of conditions on the organisers, including capping the attendance of the rally at 500 and on the timings of the rally.
Case Title:Balasore Alloys Limited vs. Flynt Mining LLP
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 73
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that merely because a dispute resolution mechanism is provided in a clause empowering the signatories to the contract to resolve the dispute, it cannot be inferred that the parties intended to refer the dispute to arbitration. Such a clause amounts to an in-house mechanism and not a reference to an impartial arbitral tribunal, especially when impartiality is clearly lacking as the very individuals who signed the contract are themselves empowered to decide the dispute.
Consumer Forums Not Legally Authorised To Issue Arrest Warrants: Calcutta High Court
Case: Abdul Manim Mollah v/s. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 74
The Calcutta High Court has held that consumer forums, in exercise of their powers under the Consumer Protection Act, are not authorised to issue arrest warrants while imposing penalties under Sections 71 or 72 of the act.
Justice Suvra Ghosh held: Section 72 of the Act envisages penalty for non-compliance of the order of the District Commission, State Commission or National Commission, as the case may be, meaning thereby, that the Commission is empowered to initiate proceeding under section 72 of the Act for penalty for non-compliance of the order. The decree holder may take recourse to section 71 or section 72 of the Act for execution of the order passed by the Consumer Forum. The law does not authorize the Forum to issue warrant of arrest for enforcement of its order under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Case Title: UMC TECHNOLOGIES P LTD VS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, (RECRUITMENT)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 75
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Facilitation Council cannot reject the arbitrable claims of the supplier without providing an opportunity to present evidence in support of the same, especially when mediation, as required under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) has failed. As per law, the Council is then mandated to either adjudicate the arbitrable matter itself or refer it to an institution providing alternative dispute resolution services.
Case: Smt. ParulbalaMondal Vs. The State of West Bengal &Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 76
The Calcutta High Court has held that a party who claims the benefit of the various welfare schemes undertaken by the state cannot complain about the restrictions of such policies and act to the detriment of other beneficiaries under such schemes.
In this case, the court was dealing with a squatter who was a beneficiary of a housing scheme by the state, claiming more land than was allowed to be allotted under the said scheme.
Case: Mr. Arnab Goswami & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 77
The Calcutta High Court has quashed proceedings against Republic TV and it's Editor-In-Chief Arnab Goswami over allegedly hateful and bigoted remarks made by a panelist during a live show, targeting the Marwari community.
Subhojit Ghosh, a guest on show, caste aspersions on the Marwari community and it's alleged involvement in black marketing, including the black marketing of masks.
Case Name: M/s. Braithwaite & Co. Limited v. Second Industrial Tribunal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 78
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that when an industry is nationalized and carried on under the authority of the Central Government pursuant to a statute like the Nationalization Act, the Central Government is the “appropriate government” under Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of industrial disputes.
Case: Central Bureau of Investigation v/s. Rajnikant Ojha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 79
The Calcutta High Court has held that in the absence of notification of the substance of a warrant, the execution of the same becomes unconstitutional in terms of Article 22(2) of the Constitution read with Section 75 of the Cr P C.
Justice Suvra Ghosh affirmed the interim bail since the arrest memo neither contained reasons for arrest nor were the grounds of arrest communicated as per Article 22 of the Constitution.
Case Title: TATA CAPITAL LIMITED VS KRISHNA KANT TIWARI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 80
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that once all liabilities, rights, and obligations are transferred to an entity through a merger approved by the competent forum, the arbitration clause contained in a loan agreement executed between the parties prior to the merger can be invoked by a third party that has acquired all such rights and liabilities post-merger.
Case Title: SATYA NARAYAN SHAW VERSUS SOURAV GHOSH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 81
The Calcutta High Court bench Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that when a scheme generally applicable to all auction related disputes contains an arbitration clause, that clause will govern disputes arising between the parties, unless a contrary scheme without such a clause is shown.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Bhuinya Proprietor Of A.K. Enterprise Vs State Of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 82
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that an application under Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), seeking substitution of the arbitrator, cannot be allowed when the petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn from the arbitral proceedings and failed to participate despite being given ample opportunities, especially after a long lapse of time
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Samanta Vs. Smt. Sikha Mondal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 83
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sakar has held that if a clause in an agreement gives the parties discretion to refer the matter to arbitration after disputes have arisen, it cannot be construed as a binding arbitration agreement. Such invocation of the arbitration clause requires fresh consent of the other party before the matter can be referred to arbitration.
Case: Dabur India Limited Vs. Union of India and others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 84
The Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Om Narayan Rai has refused grant of interim relief/stay of operation in a writ petition filed by Dabur India Limited challenging the prohibition order issued by Food Safety and Standards Authority of India ('FSSAI') against a specific batch of "Dabur Honey” - Batch No. NP5819 which was manufactured on 13.02.2024 and marked with a “Use By” date of 12.08.2025.
Case: MANIK FAKIR @ MANIK MONDAL VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 85
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a new process for the scrutiny of candidates contesting the Bengal elections. The plea further alleged that foreigners were illegally obtaining Indian citizenship to participate in the state elections and manipulate the results.
Case: Bimbadhar Mohakud & Anr. Vs. Bina Shah
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 86
The Calcutta High Court has taken exception to an order passed by the trial court, which initiated contempt proceedings for recovery of outstanding maintenance in a proceeding which had already been stayed by a coordinate bench of the High Court.
Justice Bibhas Ranjan De held:
"It has come to my utter despair that when the proceeding with respect to C.R 1344 of 2023 was already stayed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 then how come the Ld. Trial Judge initiate contempt proceedings in connection with the Misc. (Exe.) case no. 55 of 2024....it would be crystally clear that such orders were made without any sort of application of mind. Moreover, they appear to be written in a cyclostyle and mechanical manner which is highly unexpected from a responsible Judicial Officer, discharging his/her official duty."
Case Title: Jagat Singh Manot Versus The Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation And Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 87
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth has held that although disputes relating to the cancellation of written instruments under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 are arbitrable, the resulting awards are binding only on the parties involved and not on third parties who were not part of the arbitral proceedings.
Case Title: Gallant Equipment Pvt Ltd Vs Rashmi Metaliks Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 88
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that although an injunction against the invocation of a bank guarantee cannot normally be granted, if the petitioner establishes a prima facie case, the court should not hesitate to grant interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
Case Title: M/S Doon's Caterers Vs M/S Indian Railway Catering And Tourism Corporation Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 89
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that whether the subsequent revision of the original menu by IRCTC form part of the original contract containing an arbitration clause is a matter to be decided by the Arbitrator.
Such an issue falls outside the limited scope of the Court's jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
Case Name : Sabita Sen v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 90
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising of Aniruddha Roy, J. held that an employer cannot unilaterally alter the recorded date of birth of a government employee beyond the prescribed five-year limitation period from the date of joining.
Case: Calcutta Mint Workers Union & Ors. v. National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 91
A single judge bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) of the Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Industrial Tribunal's award that denied compensation to mint workers for increased working hours. The court found that extending working hours from 37½ to 44 hours per week as recommended by the 5th Pay Commission was reasonable, as it was accompanied by enhanced pay and benefits.
Case Title: Anup Kumar Singh Vs Union of India & others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 92
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Jay Sengupta has held that once a liquidation order against the Corporate Debtor is passed, all proceedings including those pending at the time of such order under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) cannot be continued, nor can any new proceedings be initiated, in view of the bar under Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). This is further reinforced by the non obstante clause under Section 238 of the Code, which gives the Code overriding effect over conflicting provisions, including those of FEMA.
Case Title: M/S Krishna Construction Vs The Chief General Manager Metro Railway And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 93
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the appointment of an arbitrator by the General Manager of Metro Railways in a dispute between Metro Railways and the contractor is barred by Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Therefore, the General Manager cannot be permitted to appoint the arbitrator.
Case: Zomangaih @ Zohmangaiha -Vs.- State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 94
The Calcutta High Court has held that the attempt of a man to grope a minor girl's breast in an inebriated state, did not tantamount to the offence of attempted rape under the POCSO act, but could be categorised as attempt to commit aggravated sexual assault due to there being no penetrative act.
Case Title: Lakhotia Metalizers Private Limited Vs Matashree Snacks Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 95
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that once conciliation fails under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act), the Council may either conduct the arbitration itself or refer the matter to an arbitral institution. As per Section 18(3) of the MSME Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) apply to such arbitration proceedings.
Case Title: Johnson Controls Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd. Vs M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji And Company Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 96
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the very acceptance of an offer at a consolidated price for works to be executed at different locations proves that the work orders issued were treated as part of a single transaction by the parties through their conduct therefore under such circumstances a composite reference of all work orders can be made to arbitration.
Case: Smti. Ananta vs. Sri Ramchander and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 97
The Calcutta High Court's circuit bench at Port Blair has directed a woman to pay Rs 1 lakh to her husband for allegedly defaming him by posting a public notice on his alleged remarriage in a local newspaper, without any evidence to that effect.
Case: Professor Bidyut Chakraborty and Ors. Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 98
The Calcutta High Court has declined to quash a case registered under the SC/AT (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against former Vice Chancellor of Visva Bharati University, Prof Bidyut Chakraborty, and other office bearers who were accused of making casteist remarks against an employee of the university at a meeting.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held: "The Central Conference Hall of the University within the four walls of the building of the University is considered to be a public place...The meeting was attended by senior officers ...in the said meeting, the petitioner no. 1 abused opposite party no. 2 and further made a statement that officers from SC, ST or OBC Categories would not be allowed to enter inside his office chamber and those categories officers would not make any mobile call to him from the date of meeting...such utterance prima facie constitutes an offence...Such restrictions based on specific caste identity, and the act takes place in a public view."
“No Work, No Pay” Doesn't Apply If Appointment Delay Is Due To Authorities' Fault : Calcutta HC
Case Name : Padmavathi Sakkinala v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 99
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Harish Tandon, J and Prasenjit Biswas, J held that the principle of “No Work, No Pay” does not apply when the delay in appointment is due to the fault of the authorities, thus entitling the affected person to monetary benefits.
Case: Asish Kumar Sen @ Bapi v/s. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 100
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against a man, who was booked for the offences of inter alia theft and house trespass under Sections 448/379/461/417/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
In quashing the case arising out of the events in 1999, Justice Suvra Ghosh held:
It is a fact that delay is a relevant factor and every accused is entitled to speedy justice in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But attending facts and circumstances leading to the delay should also be taken into consideration in deciding the issue. If prima facie material is found against the accused in a particular case, the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay. Herein, no offence as alleged having been made out against the petitioner either in the FIR or in course of investigation, allowing the proceeding to continue against the petitioner shall be an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner having suffered the ordeal of trial for considerable period of time should not be made to suffer further due to continuation of the proceeding against him.
Case Title: P & P Business Private Limited vs. Marco Francesco Shoes (India) Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 101
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Bihas Ranjan De. has observed that an arbitrator can indeed fix his remuneration, and this can be done in a manner that may not comply with the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provided that such a decision is made in consultation with the parties involved. When parties contractually agree on a fee, the Fourth Schedule will not be applicable.
Case: Metsil Exports Private Limited and Another Vs. West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 102
The Calcutta High Court has struck down a state law which allowed electricity companies to penalise consumers who consumed more electricity than the limit prescribed by the companies.
The impugned rule was under Regulation 4.4 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2011 (for short, “the 2011 Tariff Regulations”), framed by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (WBERC).
Case Title: Sri Arun Kumar Jindal & Anr. VS. Smt. Rajni Poddar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 103
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De has held that withdrawal of an execution petition for enforcement of an arbitral award on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, when such ground is clearly stated in the withdrawal application, does not bar the petitioner from refiling before the appropriate forum, even if the court's order does not expressly grant liberty to refile. Accordingly, the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) cannot be denied.
Case Title: Star Track Agency Private Limited Vs. Efcalon Tie Up Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (104)
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar has held that considering alternative propositions by the Arbitrator and proceeding on the premise that the award holder would be entitled to an interim award under either scenario does not amount to an inherent contradiction. Evaluating alternatives is a legitimate judicial exercise and does not tantamount to perversity.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Quashing Of ₹7.29 Crore Penalty Imposed On Dissolved HUF
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9, Kolkata Vs. Chandravadan Desai (HUF)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 105
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the quashing of penalty proceedings initiated against a dissolved Hindu Joint Family.
A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) upheld the ITAT order which had relied on a Supreme Court ruling to declare the penalty action void-ab-initio.
Case: Dr. Satinath Samanta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation:2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 106
A division bench of Calcutta High Court consisting of Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Supratim Bhattacharya allowed a petition that was filed by a doctor, whose pension was denied due to insufficient qualifying service. The court ruled that if the Government delays in implementing court mandated absorption of an employee, the period of delay should be counted towards the qualifying service for pension purposes. The court held that the petitioner cannot be penalised for the delay caused by the authorities.
Case title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 1, Kolkata v. Wise Investment Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 107
The Calcutta High Court has made it clear that the Delhi High Court decisions in NR Portfolio and Navodaya Castles will hold no value where an assessee-company establishes the identity of its shares subscribers, creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transactions.
In CIT v. NR Portfolio Private Limited (2014) and in CITA v. Navodaya Castles Private Limited (2014), the Delhi High Court had held that mere production of incorporation details, PAN Nos. or the fact that third persons or company had filed income tax details in case of a private limited company may not be sufficient when surrounding and attending facts predicate a cover up. These facts indicate and reflect proper paperwork or documentation but genuineness, creditworthiness, identity are deeper and obtrusive.
Case Title: Ananta Barman and Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 108
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi has held that the right to default bail is defeated once a chargesheet is filed within the statutory time period. Even if the chargesheet is not accompanied by a Chemical Examination Report, it cannot be deemed incomplete provided the evidence collected during the investigation is sufficient to proceed against the accused. A charge sheet without the Chemical Examination Report filed within time is nonetheless a charge sheet which disentitles the accused to default bail.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Order Dismissing Plea Challenging Shift Of NCLT Premises To New Town
Case: NCLT Advocates Bar Association & Ors. -Vs- Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 109
The Calcutta High Court has upheld a single bench order declining a plea challenging the move to shift the NCLT Kolkata premises located near the High Court, to a new building in the city's New Town area, as proposed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
A division bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Apurba Sinha Ray held: "The question, however, is not whether the shift in location is beneficial or detrimental per se, but whether this Court can, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, intervene in such matters of administrative discretion. The answer to that must be in the negative."
Excise Duty Under Sugar Cess Act Can Be Claimed As CENVAT Credit: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata South, GST Bhawan v. M/s Diamond Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 110
The Calcutta High Court stated that excise duty under sugar tax act can be claimed as CENVAT credit.
The Bench consists of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing the issue of whether payment of duty under Sugar Cess Act, 1982 can be claimed as Cenvat Credit when the Cenvat Credit Rules does not provide payment of cess under the Sugar Cess Act, 1982 as not being eligible under Rule 3 of the said Rules.
Case Title: VIRGO SOFTECH LIMITED & ANR. VS SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 111
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that non-consideration of a judgment of the Supreme Court amounts to patent illegality, which is a valid ground for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) particularly when the award is passed by an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by one party.
Case Name : Dr. Satinath Samanta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 112
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that the delay by the State in absorbing an employee cannot be used to deny pension benefits if such delay alone causes shortfall in qualifying service.
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. The Reliance Jute Mills (International Limited)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 113
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that once the liability or quantum of a claim under an insurance policy is established, the Insurance Company must not withhold the claim amount and must comply with Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) Circular which entitles the Insured to claim a higher amount.
It further held that the Circular clearly provided that if an insured is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, they are entitled to approach judicial or statutory forums for higher compensation. Execution of a discharge voucher does not amount to estoppel, nor does it bar the insured from pursuing additional claims.
Case Title: Dhananjai Lifestyle Limited vs. Sanvie Retail Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 114
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act can be sought by the MSME only after mandatory conciliation before the MSME Council fails and the dispute proceeds to arbitration—either conducted by the Council or referred to an arbitral institution. Only then do the provisions of the Arbitration Act apply. Consequently, seeking relief under the Arbitration Act during conciliation is clearly prohibited under section 77 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: Mittal Technopack Private Limited Vs Ideal Real Estate Private Limited And Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 115
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the appropriate forum for seeking interim relief after the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal is the Tribunal itself under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. Recourse to the court under Section 9 is permitted during the arbitration proceedings only if the remedy under Section 17 is found to be inefficacious.
Case: ITC LIMITED VS THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADEMARK
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 116
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order passed by the Patent Controller, denying a patent to ITC Limited for a “A Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol.” The patent was denied on grounds of public health and morality, keeping in mind The Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage, and Advertisement) Act, 2019.
Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur held: "The preconceived and subjective notion that all tobacco products causes serious prejudice to human life and health without any reliance on scientific or technical evidence or any other supporting facts is unsustainable. The finding that the subject invention is contrary to public order and morality is unreasoned, cryptic and without any basis. The fact that the Controller was of the view without consideration of any independent scientific or technical evidence that the usage of the invention affects public order and morality cannot be the basis for rejecting the invention."
Case: Rabindra Nath Das Versus Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 117
A division bench consisting of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra of the Calcutta High Court dismissed two cross appeals. Both appeals arose out of a single judge order that directed the release of retirement benefits to a former RPF officer. The court explained that proceedings initiated under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) Rules, 1987, cannot continue after compulsory retirement. Further, the court also held that since the proceedings were not initiated under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (“Pension Rules”), the pension benefits could not be withheld either.
Case Name : Dibyajyoti Ghosh v. The Coal India Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 118
A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty & Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that employee against whom disciplinary proceedings were pending at time of recommendation for promotion can be granted promotion only prospectively after the conclusion of proceedings.
Case Title: Steel Authority of India Limited Vs H. R. Construction Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 119
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) has held that an amendment to the original claim may be permitted during arbitral proceedings, even at the stage of final arguments, particularly when costs have been imposed on the party seeking the amendment and accepted by the opposite party—provided the amendment does not materially alter the nature of the original claim or cause prejudice.
It further held that while Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) provisions may be applied in arbitration, they are not to be strictly enforced to bar such amendments under Order VI Rule 17, given the more flexible framework of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Joni Sk Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 120
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision or opinion of medical experts, nor can it substitute its own judgment for that of the experts. Judicial interference is warranted only in cases where there is clear evidence of mala fides, arbitrariness, or inconsistency on the face of the expert opinion. This case does not present any such grounds.
Case Title: BVEPL BHARTIA (JV) VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 121
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the mere use of the words “arbitration” or “arbitrator” in a clause does not constitute an arbitration agreement if the clause requires or contemplates a further or fresh consent of the parties before referring the dispute to arbitration.
Case: Abhijit Mitra Vs. Smt. Dipa Mitra (Ghosh)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 122
The Calcutta High Court has granted divorce to a man on grounds of cruelty by his wife in a 2018 divorce case. The man had been denied divorce by the trial court in an order which was found to be "copy-pasted" from earlier orders by the trial court in matrimonial suits.
While finding the trial judge's notions "patriarchal" and "condescending", a division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar held:
"The entire mindset of the learned Trial Judge appears to spring up from a patriarchal and condescending approach, thereby attributing a condescending role to the husband, to advice his wife properly and also to condone cruel acts of the wife by trying to “bridge the gap” between the parties. Such observations have nothing to do with the law on the subject. The settled law in matrimonial disputes is that the court has to look at the conduct of the parties from their perspective and to come to a finding as to whether there is any cruelty, either mental or physical, perpetrated by either of the spouses against the other so as to make it impossible for normal conjugal life to be led together by them."
Case Title: MAYA BOURI Versus M/s. EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 123
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that once a person qualifies for benefits under a scheme, those benefits must be extended to them even if they have not submitted an application seeking such benefits.
Case Title: Suman Ray @ Suman Roy -Vs- State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 124
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Uday Kumar observed that under Section 289 of the IPC, it is the duty of animal owners or possessors to ensure their animals do not cause probable danger or grievous harm to human life. Given the serious risk posed by dog attacks, owners must take adequate measures to prevent any harm. The provision's use of "knowingly or negligently omits" points out that liability arising either from actual knowledge of the animal's dangerous tendencies or from a failure to exercise due care in its management.
Case: The State of West Bengal Vs. Susanta Chowdhury
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 125
The Calcutta High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man accused who had been accused of murdering his ex-girlfriend by stabbing her 45 times. The convict was sentenced to life imprisonment instead.
A division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Shabbar Rashidi held that the crime did not fall into the rarest of rare category to sustain a death penalty, and that the convict was not beyond reformation.
Case: Sudhar Mangar Vs The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 126
The Calcutta High Court has called for action against two judicial officers, namely the Chief Judicial Magistrate and District and Sessions Judge(NDPS), for their failure to offer a legal aid lawyer to an NDPS accused who had been unrepresented in the proceedings before the court.
While granting bail to the accused, Justice Krishna Rao observed that the accused was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Sessions Judge after his arrest, but neither judicial officer provided him with legal representation.
Case Title: DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION VS AKA LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 127
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that an Advocate who has accepted briefs from a law firm for unrelated clients cannot, by that fact alone, be deemed ineligible to act as an Arbitrator in disputes involving parties not personally known to or represented by him, even if the same law firm appears in the arbitration.
Case Title: M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus SUJAN SEIKH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 128
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Rai Chattopadhyay has held that where an agreement between the parties contains a clear arbitration clause and disputes arise under that agreement, the Trial Court is bound to refer the parties to arbitration. The question of whether such reference is appropriate or not does not arise, as Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory in nature.
Case: Midnapur District Service cum Marketing & Industrial Cooperative Union Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 129
Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) allowed the grant of gratuity to a former employee of Midnapur District Service-cum-Marketing & Industrial Cooperative Union Ltd. The court held that the union came within the scope of Section 1(3)(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court held that denying these dues after 34 years of service amounted to unfair labour practice.
Case Title: Dulal Kumbhakar -Vs- State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 130
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Uday Kumar has held that a close reading of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, reveals no provision allowing retrospective application. When there is no provision expressly making the Act retrospective in nature, applying it to the acts committed before the Act came into force would violate Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution. The State's reliance on the detection in 2016 that is after the Act came into force of the alleged offence is misplaced, as the relevant date is the commission of the act, not its discovery. Accepting otherwise would undermine the constitutional bar on retrospective criminalization.
Case: Sagar Sengupta Vs. State of West Bengal &Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 131
Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee held that the disciplinary proceedings against a senior bank employee were conducted by officials who did not have the authority to do so. Consequently, the court also set aside his termination order. The court ruled that both the charge sheet and the termination order violated Rule 106 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011.
Case: STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SURESH PASWAN
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 132
The Calcutta High Court has commuted the death sentence of one Suresh Paswan, who was charged with rape and murder of a two and a half year old girl child who was sleeping under a flyover around Kolkata's Khidderporearea with her family.
Justices Debangsu Basak and Shabbar Rashidi held: "The circumstances of the case do not suggest that the offence committed was preplanned or was an outcome of any rivalry or enmity with the family of the victim. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in many cases that every murder is gruesome but does not justify death penalty. In any case, we are not in a position to return a finding that the offence involved in the case at hand falls under the category of 'rarest of rare cases' to justify the punishment of death."
Case Title: SMT. MAMATA BANERJEE AND ANR. - VERSUS – EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 133
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra observed that the judiciary upholds social justice and fairness, guided by the principle that equity treats as done what ought to have been done. In complex cases involving competing rights, courts may need to innovate—within the bounds of equity and good conscience—to find a just and balanced solution. This case is one such instance.
Case: PASCHIM BANGA KHET MAZDOOR SAMITY AND ANR. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 134
The Calcutta High Court has directed the prospective implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) scheme in the state of West Bengal, from 1st August 2025, after an almost three-year hiatus over allegations of embezzlement.
A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was hearing a continuing matter on the non-payment of dues to daily wage labourers under the MGNREGA scheme over allegations by the central government of embezzlement of funds.
Case Title: The Board of Major Port Authority for the Syama Prasad Mukherjee Port, Kolkata Vs. Marinecraft Engineers Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 135
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that once arbitral proceedings commenced under Section 18(3) under the MSME Act, the process could not be reversed to reinitiate pre-arbitral conciliation. The Council did not do so either. It was only at the petitioner's request that additional avenues for mutual settlement were explored alongside the arbitration. Upon the failure of these efforts, the Council proceeded to decide the matter on merits.
Case: Prokash Mandal & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 136
The Calcutta High Court has restrained the West Bengal government from paying a 'stipend' to over 25 thousand Group C and D non-teaching staff whose appointments had been cancelled by the Supreme Court in light of the cash for jobs recruitment scam.
Earlier, Justice Amrita Sinha had stayed the state's decision to pay an allowance of Rs 25,000 and Rs 20,000 to these staff members, whose appointments had been annulled.
Case: Amal Chandra Das Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 137
The Calcutta High Court while putting a stay on the notification by which the state government had ordered the preparation of a new list for Other Backward Caste (OBC) classes in the state, has held that it prima facie appeared that the state was trying to reintroduce the same OBC classes and percentage of reservations which had been struck down by a division bench of the court, and upheld by the Supreme Court.
Case Title: SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED VS TRINITY ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT MANAGERS LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 138
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that at this stage, the petitioner is adequately secured under the schedule to the deeds of hypothecation agreement. The respondent remains fully operational and continues its business activities. There is nothing in the pleadings to suggest that the respondent has attempted to remove or alienate its assets in a manner that would render any future award in favour of the petitioner unenforceable or illusory.
Case Title: WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS. TATA MOTORS LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 139
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that when an application under Section 36(2) seeking unconditional stay of the award on the ground of fraud or corruption is pending adjudication, the question of impleading the person who delivered the award does not arise at such a premature stage. Unless the court, upon examining the application, arrives at a prima facie finding that the award was indeed procured by fraud or corruption, impleadment is neither necessary nor maintainable.
Case: Anuprabha Das Majumder -versus- The Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 140
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has directed the Regional Passport Office, Kolkata to consider the petitioner's application for a new passport along with her transgender identification card.
Justice Amrita Sinha held: "The petitioner shall take steps in accordance with law for the purpose of obtaining the passport. The transgender identity card of the petitioner shall be taken into account at the time of consideration of the petitioner's application for a passport."
Case: CAPE FOUNDATION & ANR. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL and ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 141
The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal government to ensure that elephants are not taken out of the state in an illegal manner.
Justices Ravi Kishan Kapur and Arindam Mukherjee were taking up a matter concerning three elephants who had been taken out of the state illegally and had been taken across the border to Bihar.
Case Title: THE CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. VS THE CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 142
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Justice Kausik Chanda has held that without framing Regulations or without the budget estimate prescribing the rates at which advertisement tax may be levied by Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), computation and imposition of such tax would be arbitrary. It would have no rational basis. It would then be open to KMC to quantify such tax as per its sweet will, which cannot be countenanced under the rule of law.
Calcutta High Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Man Who Raped Minor, Burned Her Dead Body
Case Title: Srimanta Tung v State Of West Bengal (C.R.A. 684 of 2018)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 143
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday (June 24) commuted the death penalty awarded to a man convicted for the rape and murder of a minor girl to life imprisonment, after noting that he did not have any criminal antecedents or past unsocial behaviour and was of "advanced age of 58 years".
The court however upheld the conviction of the appellant by the trial court, observing that "circumstances brought forth by the prosecution leaves no iota of doubt that the appellant alone is the perpetrator of the crime".
Case: The State of West Bengal Vs. Asoke Kumar Maity & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 144
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Smita Das De held that an employee transferred from central government scheme to state university sanctioned post without any objections from the state Government at the time of transfer, can't be denied retiral benefits.
Case: Shri Rajat Kumar Varshney Versus Central Bank of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 145
A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty & Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that adverse remarks on an employee's integrity must be based on conclusive findings in disciplinary proceedings, and a person who has earned reputation cannot be ousted through imposition of a stigma on the basis of perverse findings.
Case title: Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Limited & Anr. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Taltala Charge, WBGST & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 146
Calcutta High Court recently directed the proper officer under the GST Act to consider ordering refund of the unutilised ITC of an Assessee to his personal bank account, as his business was closed and its GST registration stood cancelled.
The Petitioner was aggrieved by a direction of the proper officer, though allowing the refund sanction to the tune of Rs. 68,66,238/- but, directing the amount to be paid to the bank account of the business— Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Limited.
Case Title: Mubarak Ansari & Anr. -Versus- The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 147
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas has held that to convict a person under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), it must be conclusively proven that the deceased wife was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with a dowry demand soon before her death. If there is a significant gap between the alleged cruelty or harassment and the death, the essential link required for a dowry death is broken, and the accused cannot be held liable under this provision.
Case Title: Gangadhar Mondal Vs. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 148
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that when the statutory process has been properly followed, any perceived procedural error or misapplication of law does not amount to a bona fide or clerical mistake. In the present case, as the petitioner's age was determined in accordance with the regulations applicable at the time of his appointment, the rejection of his request to rectify the date of birth cannot be considered illegal.
Case Title: FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIA LTD. (IN LIQN.) -AND- CHANDAN KUMAR GANGULY AND ORS. -VS- THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 149
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Krishna Rao has held that using funds from the Official Liquidator's Establishment Charges Account for medical or terminal benefits is generally impermissible, as these funds are earmarked for administrative and operational costs related to the liquidation process—such as legal fees, publication expenses, and office overheads—not employee welfare or benefits.
Payment Of Gratuity Act; Controlling Authority Cannot Deny Interest On Delayed Gratuity: Calcutta HC
Case: Himangshu Karmakar Vs Food Corporation of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 150
Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) directed the Food Corporation of India ('FCI') to pay the statutory interest on delayed gratuity to an employee. The court held that under Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the controlling authority has no discretion to deny interest on the delayed payment of gratuity.
Guest Faculty Not Workman Under Industrial Disputes Act: Calcutta HC
Case: Sri Hansraj Koley Vs. The Secretary, Labour Department and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 151
Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed a challenge to an industrial tribunal's award. The court explained that a guest faculty who was paid honorariums for specific sessions, cannot claim the status of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.