Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: February 2025

NOMINAL INDEX

Chaitali Roy (Mandal) v. State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 21

ASSOCITATION FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS(APDR) AND ANR VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 22

Dilip Kumar Choudhury & Ors. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Durgapur, EPFO & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 23

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL LIBRARY, MINISTRY OF CULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VS EXPRESSION 360 SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS EXPRESSION AD AGENCY PVT. LTD.) Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 24

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS SANJAY ROY Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 26

X vs Y Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 27

In Re : Putul Ghosh Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 28

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 13 Kolkata Vs Champalal Omprakash Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 29

Mr. Shuvendra Mullick -Vs- Mr. Indranil Mullick and others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 30

X v Y Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 31

Dipak Mishra Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 32

Haldibari Tea Manufacturers LLP & Anr. Versus Mahindra Tubes Limited & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 33

Shri Debasish Choudhury -versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 34

In Re : Narayan Dey & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 35

Madusree Ghosh & Anr. Vs. The state of West Bengal and another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 36

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SOUTH CITY PROJECTS (KOLKATA) & ANR. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 37

Delwar Sk. @ Delwar Seikh Vs. The State of West Bengal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 38

Kalpataru Projects International Limited vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (BHEL) Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 39

M/s. Stesalit Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 40

Sourav Paul Versus State of West Bengal & Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 41

ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS

Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Granted To Posts Under Urban Local Bodies In Absence Of Specific Policy: Calcutta HC

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.

Calcutta HC Directs Fresh Probe Into Custodial Death Of Four Undertrial Prisoners, Orders Action Against Non-Use Of CCTV In Police Stations

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.

Provident Fund's “Reserve & Surplus” Amount Transferred To Statutory Fund, Employees Can't Claim It Separately From Provident Fund Dues : Calcutta HC

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.

Govt Authority Must Furnish Security Before Getting Stay On Award U/S 36(3) Of A&C Act, No Special Treatment Can Be Given: Calcutta High Court

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.

Calcutta High Court Declines Plea Seeking Extension Of Time For Trial Against Ex-RG Kar Principal Sandip Ghosh

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.

Calcutta High Court Rejects WB Govt's Appeal Against RG Kar Convict's Life Sentence; Admits CBI's Appeal

Case: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS SANJAY ROY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 26

Mere Friendship Between Husband & Colleague Cannot Be Perceived As Illicit Relationship: Calcutta High Court

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.

Trial Courts Must Dispatch All Physical Case Records Within 30 Days Of Receiving HC Communication: Calcutta High Court Frames Guidelines

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.

AO Duty Bound To Dispose Of Assessee's Written Objections To Proposed Re-Assessment By Passing Speaking Order: Calcutta High Court

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.

Installing CCTV Cameras Inside Residential Portion Of House Without Consent Of Co-Occupants Violates Right To Privacy: Calcutta High Court

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.

Courts Must Be Pragmatic In Criminal Cases Arising From Matrimonial Disputes, Tendency To Implicate Husband & His Relatives Not Uncommon: Calcutta HC

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.

State Withdrawing Such Cases Sends Wrong Message To Society: Calcutta HC Orders Fresh Trial In Ten Criminal Cases Tied To Nandigram Unrest

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."

Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Even If No Satisfaction Is Recorded By Court On Bypassing Pre-Institution Mediation U/S 12A Of Commercial Courts Act: Calcutta HC

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.

"Didn't Have Conscious Possession": Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To Delivery Boys Booked Under NDPS Act For Transporting Illicit Goods

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.

Threat Of False Criminal Case Does Not Gain Status Of Abetment To Suicide Without 'Positive Act' Pushing Victim To The Edge: Calcutta HC

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."

Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Directing KMDA To Refund Amount Deposited By South City Projects Under MoU

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).

[NDPS Act] No Infirmity If Forensic Lab Directly Gives Chemical Report To Trial Court, All Involved In Criminal Trial Must Reduce Delay: Calcutta HC

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.

[Arbitration Act] Referral Courts Can't Indulge In Enquiry Into Whether Claims Are Time-Barred: Calcutta High Court

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.

Gratuity Dues Of Workers Do Not Form Part Of 'Liquidation Estate' Of Corporate Debtor, Must Be Paid In Full: Calcutta High Court

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.

Calcutta High Court Quashes Case Against Man Accused Of 'Mocking' CM Mamata Banerjee, Other Leaders On YouTube

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."