NOMINAL INDEXThe State of West Bengal Vs. Susanta Chowdhury Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 125Sudhar Mangar Vs The State of West Bengal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 126M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus SUJAN SEIKH Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 128Midnapur District Service cum Marketing & Industrial Cooperative Union Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal &...
NOMINAL INDEX
The State of West Bengal Vs. Susanta Chowdhury Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 125
Sudhar Mangar Vs The State of West Bengal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 126
M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus SUJAN SEIKH Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 128
Midnapur District Service cum Marketing & Industrial Cooperative Union Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 129
Dulal Kumbhakar -Vs- State of West Bengal & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 130
Sagar Sengupta Vs. State of West Bengal &Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 131
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SURESH PASWAN Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 132
SMT. MAMATA BANERJEE AND ANR. - VERSUS – EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED AND ORS. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 133
PASCHIM BANGA KHET MAZDOOR SAMITY AND ANR. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 134
The Board of Major Port Authority for the Syama Prasad Mukherjee Port, Kolkata Vs. Marinecraft Engineers Private Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 135
Prokash Mandal & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 136
Amal Chandra Das Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 137
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED VS TRINITY ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT MANAGERS LIMITED Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 138
WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS. TATA MOTORS LIMITED Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 139
Anuprabha Das Majumder -versus- The Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 140
CAPE FOUNDATION & ANR. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL and ANR. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 141
THE CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. VS THE CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL & ORS. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 142
Srimanta Tung v State Of West Bengal (C.R.A. 684 of 2018) Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 143
The State of West Bengal Vs. Asoke Kumar Maity & Ors Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 144
Shri Rajat Kumar Varshney Versus Central Bank of India & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 145
Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Limited & Anr. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Taltala Charge, WBGST & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 146
Mubarak Ansari & Anr. -Versus- The State of West Bengal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 147
Gangadhar Mondal Vs. Union of India & Ors Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 148
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
Himangshu Karmakar Vs Food Corporation of India & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 150
Sri Hansraj Koley Vs. The Secretary, Labour Department and others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 151
ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS
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.