Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: March 2025
Srinjoy Das
2 April 2025 1:31 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
M/s N.C. Construction v. Union of India Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 42
Ashok Sharma v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 43
Airports Authority of India & Ors. vs. Provash Besai & Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 44
SREI Equipment Finance Limited v. Whitefield Papermills Ltd. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 45
Swarnakshar Prakasani Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 46
Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Union of India & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 47
A K GHOSH AND COMPANY AND ORS. VERSUS BIMAN BOSE AND ORS. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 48
TAPAS PAL VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 49
Union of India v. Rahul Kumar Thakur Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 50
ILEAD FOUNDATION Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 51
Karur Vyasa Bank v. SREI Equipment Finance Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 52
IIM Calcutta v Union of India Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 53
State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. M/s. S.K. Maji Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 54
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS VERSUS SAUMAJIT ROY CHOWDHURY Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 55
BISWAS ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 56
Aiswarya Rajya Rai & Ors. -Vs.- The Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta Service Through the Learned Registrar General & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 57
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
M/s Exchange and Others v. Pradip Kumar Ganeriwala and Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 59
Rajiv Mondal @ Rajib -Vs.- The State of West Bengal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 60
Sk. Monikul Hossain VS. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 61
NCLT Advocates Bar Association, Kolkata Bench & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 62
BLACK DIAMOND RESOURCES AND ANR. VS INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 63
Rabindra Bharati University & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 64
Hooghly Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Sk. Alam Ismail & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 65
M/s. Great Sports Tech Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 66
ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS
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 "