Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: August 2025

NOMINAL INDEX

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Kolkata v. Minto Park Estates Private Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 188

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central - 2, Kolkata v. M/s. Zulu Merchandise Private Limited Case No: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 189

Ravi Kumar Ray Vs. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 190

ROSHAN AGARWAL VS. NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED (NPCCL) & ANR. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 191

P.K THAKUR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 192

Supriya Mondal and Ors. Vs. Binod Kumar and Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 193

Kamini Ferrous Limited Vs. Om Shiv Mangalam Builders Private Limited & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 194

M/S. NATIONAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION (NPCCL) VS MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES (MES) Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 195

Aftab Alam Vs. The State of West Bengal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 196

Tara Lohia Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 197

The West Bengal State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-54 Kolkata Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 198

MOONDUST PAPER PVT LTD. Vs VINAY SHAW AND OTHERS Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 199

ANIRBAN PAL VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 200

GLEN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 201

UBS Switzerland AG Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 202

In the matter of: Paresh Paul & others. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 203

JAHANARA BIBI @ JAHANARA BEGAM @ JAHANARA MONDAL @ JANU - VERSUS – UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 204

Subhash Chandra Paik @ Chandara Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 205

M/s. Xpro India Limited. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 206

Ram Kishan Mittal Vs. The State of West Bengal. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 207

J.D. ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS PURBACHAL UDYOG Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 208

The State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. M/S B B M ENTERPRISE. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 209

ORDERS/JUDGEMENT

Mere Incorporation Of Investing Companies Under Companies Act Not Enough To Prove Genuineness Of Share Transactions: Calcutta High Court

Case: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Kolkata v. Minto Park Estates Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 188

The Calcutta High Court held that mere incorporation of investing companies under the Companies Act is not enough to prove the genuineness of share transactions.

The bench opined that, admittedly, the shares were by way of a private placement. Though the investing companies might have been incorporated under the provisions of the Company's Act, that by itself will not validate the transaction.

Stock Exchange & Banking Channels Cannot Mask Sham Transactions Carried Out Through Bogus Capital Loss Claim Companies: Calcutta High Court

Case: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central - 2, Kolkata v. M/s. Zulu Merchandise Private Limited

Case No: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 189

The Calcutta High Court held that stock exchange and banking channels cannot mask sham transactions carried out through bogus capital loss claim companies.

Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) observed that “the entire information contained in the investigation report was apprised to the assessee by the assessing officer and thereafter the show cause notices was issued for which the assessee' submitted their reply and in the reply they did not raise any issue that they were unaware about the investigation report but made a vague and unsubstantiated statement stating that the transaction was in the normal course of business.”

Calcutta High Court Quashes Cancellation Of BSF Aspirant's Domicile Certificate, Says No Hearing Was Granted Before Cancellation

Case Title: Ravi Kumar Ray Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 190

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has set aside an order passed by the State Authority cancelling the Domicile Certificate of the petitioner, on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before taking such a decision, which entailed civil and adverse consequences. Since the decision to cancel the certificate was procedurally flawed, the cancellation of the BSF's offer of appointment based on such cancellation of the Domicile Certificate was also quashed.

Mere Use Of Expression “Arbitration” Insufficient To Constitute A Binding Agreement U/S 7 Of A&C Act: Calcutta High Court

Case: ROSHAN AGARWAL VS. NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED (NPCCL) & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 191

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that mere use of the expression “Arbitration” in a clause will not automatically make the clause a binding arbitration agreement as contemplated under Section 7 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 unless there is a clear intent to refer disputes to Arbitration. The court observed that an arbitration agreement has to be couched not in precatory, but obligatory words. Although, there is no particular form or universally practiced format in framing an arbitration agreement, but the words used must be certain, definite and indicative of the determination of the parties to go for arbitration and not a choice or a mere possibility to refer such dispute to arbitration.

Rejection Of Claims By Writ Court Over Disputed Issues Does Not Bar Reference To Arbitration: Calcutta High Court

Case Title:P.K THAKUR AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 192

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that when the claims of the petitioner are not adjudicated by writ courts and subsequently by the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition on the ground that they involve disputed questions of fact and law which are beyond the remit of the court, and the petitioner is directed to invoke the alternative remedy of arbitration due to the undisputed existence of an arbitration clause, the matter should be referred to arbitration and whether the time period spent in prosecuting before the writ courts should be excluded can be decided by the Arbitrator.

Calcutta High Court Directs Redrawing Of WBJEE 2025 Merit List In Compliance With HC Orders On OBC Reservation

Case: Supriya Mondal and Ors. Vs. Binod Kumar and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 193

The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal Joint Entrance Examinations Board to recast the merit list drawn up for the 2025 Joint Entrance Exams, to bring them in conformity with the pre-2010 percentage of OBC reservations, as had been ordered by the High Court in its May 2024 order.

This came after the court observed that the Board had issued the merit list in the present case, in violation of the High Court's May 2024 order, which had not been stayed by the Supreme Court.

Cause Of Action Arises From Clear Refusal To Perform Contractual Obligations, Not Mere Non-Performance: Calcutta High Court

Case Title:Kamini Ferrous Limited Vs. Om Shiv Mangalam Builders Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 194

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that when there is a clear refusal by one of the parties to perform the terms of a contract, the cause of action arises from the date of such refusal, and not from the date of initial non-performance, especially where negotiations continued, implying that the parties possibly wanted to extend the time for performance.

Reference To Dispute Resolution Board Not Mandatory Before Invoking S.11(6) Of Arbitration Act If It Is Not Constituted On Time: Calcutta HC

Case Title: M/S. NATIONAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION (NPCCL) VS MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES (MES)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 195

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that a party cannot be compelled to approach the Dispute Resolution Board (DSB) for resolution of disputes first before invoking the jurisdiction of the court under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act especially when the DSB was not constituted as per terms of the contract and its composition was not even communicated to the Petitioner within the stipulated time period after the execution of the contract therefore seeking reference to the DSB when the petitioner approaches the court under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act cannot be accepted.

Death Penalty Is Irreversible Step, Judges Should Never Be 'Bloodthirsty': Calcutta High Court Commutes Death Sentence In Murder Case

Case: Aftab Alam Vs. The State of West Bengal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 196

The Calcutta High Court has commuted a death sentence awarded to the petitioner for murder and dacoity to life imprisonment, and observed that judges should not be 'bloodthirsty' in such cases since sentencing someone to death would be an irreversible step that could not be undone even if new evidence were to surface.

Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Officer's ITC Finding Made Within Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Tara Lohia Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 197

The Calcutta High Court stated that writ is not maintainable against officer's ITC finding made within jurisdiction. Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury stated that “Though, violation of principles of natural justice, and a challenge on jurisdictional issue can be maintained, such issue must, relate to an exercise of jurisdiction by an authority which it does not have, and not merely an error committed within its jurisdiction.”

Income Tax | Interest Earned On Surplus Lending Funds Is Attributable To Banking Business, Qualifies For 80P Deduction: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: The West Bengal State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-54 Kolkata

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 198

The Calcutta High Court stated that interest earned on surplus lending funds is attributable to banking business, qualifies for 80P deduction under Income Tax Act.

Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides 100% tax deductions to cooperative societies for income from specified activities. These activities commonly include marketing agricultural produce, purchasing agricultural supplies, processing products without power, offering banking services, and more.

Calcutta High Court Grants Plea For Injunction By Moondust Paper Ltd In Suit Against Infringement Of 'Captain Gogo' Trademark

Case: MOONDUST PAPER PVT LTD. Vs VINAY SHAW AND OTHERS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 199

The Calcutta High Court has granted an order of injunction to Moondust Paper Private Limited, the owners of the trademark 'Captain Gogo' in a suit for infringement of the trademark by various entities.

In granting the prayers for injunction, Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur held:

"It is evident that the impugned products fall in the same category as of the petitioners and are also being sold through the same trade channels. In selling the impugned products, the respondents are acting in a fraudulent and dishonest manner. There is every attempt made to imitate not only the petitioner's name but also the copyright registration which is being enjoyed by the petitioner. Prima facie, there is every possibility of confusion and disruption among the public."

Disabled Persons Entitled To Posting At Same Place Even After Promotion Under Policy Framed Pursuant To International Obligations: Calcutta HC

Case Title: ANIRBAN PAL VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 200

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and Smita Das De has held that a policy mandating that disabled persons remain posted at the same place even after promotion is binding, especially when framed under international obligations. A disabled person cannot be denied the benefit of such a policy even if reversion is sought by him under compelling circumstances.

Proceedings Between Expiry Of Arbitrator's Mandate And Its Extension Are Not Void If Mandate Is Extended: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: GLEN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 201

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that proceedings conducted by the Arbitrator between the expiry of the mandate and its subsequent extension cannot be declared void once the application seeking extension is allowed. Upon extension, the mandate relates back to the date of expiry.

Procedure U/S105 CrPC For International Service Of Summons Doesn't Extend To Revision Applications: Calcutta High Court

Case: UBS Switzerland AG Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 202

The Calcutta High Court has held that though procedural fairness is vital in criminal trials, the application of Section 105 of the CrPC for the service on summons on persons resident outside India in criminal matters does not extend to the service of notice in revisional matters abroad.

Calcutta High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To TMC Leaders Accused In 2021 Post-Poll Violence Death Case

Case: In the matter of: Paresh Paul & others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 203

The Calcutta High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Paresh Paul, a 79-year-old MLA, Paresh Paul, and two others belonging to the ruling political party of the State, accused in a post-poll violence death case after the Assembly Elections of 2021.

It was alleged that on 02.05.2021 in the afternoon, 7 or 8 unknown persons came to the house of the original de facto complainant and asked for the whereabouts of her son, the deceased victim. They alleged that the victim had occupied many rooms of the Railways. Altercations took place, and the miscreants started assaulting the informant. The younger son of the complainant was brutally assaulted and succumbed to his injuries.

Preventive Detention Becomes Unconstitutional When Used To Incarcerate For Past Offences Despite Grant Of Bail: Calcutta High Court

Case: JAHANARA BIBI @ JAHANARA BEGAM @ JAHANARA MONDAL @ JANU - VERSUS – UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 204

The Calcutta High Court has held that an order of preventive detention becomes unconstitutional when it is weaponised to punish for earlier crimes, and continue custody of an accused even after bail had been granted by the courts.

A division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held:

"The legal distinction between preventive and punitive detention is well established. The former aims to forestall future prejudicial acts, the latter to punish past ones. Yet from the point of the detenu, the practical reality is the same: loss of liberty, separation from family, and confinement behind prison walls. Indeed, preventive detention, imposed without trial, can be more intrusive to personal liberty than punitive detention. This is why the Constitution and the statute subjects such orders to strict safeguards, and why the Supreme Court has cautioned that preventive detention must not be used as a convenient substitute for punishment under the ordinary criminal process. Where the real object is to incarcerate for past offences, or to continue custody despite a court granting bail, the order loses its preventive character and becomes unconstitutional."

“Not Safe To Allow Local Police To Continue Investigation”: Calcutta High Court Transfers Khejuri Murder Probe To CID

Case: Subhash Chandra Paik @ Chandara

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 205

The Calcutta High Court has directed the state CID to investigate the murder of two men who were brutally killed in West Bengal's Khejuri.

Justice Tirthankar Ghosh held: “Having regard to the factum of instilling public confidence in an investigation both in respect of the manner of investigation process, the difference in the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeons and the fact that the incident happened simultaneously at the same place which raises a doubt after obtaining the second post-mortem report, I am of the opinion that it would not be safe to allow the investigation to be continued by the local police authorities of Khejuri Police Station. Accordingly ADG, CID, Bhabani Bhavan, West Bengal is hereby directed to engage an Officer in the rank of DIG, CID, West Bengal who would form a Special Investigating Team from the Homicide Section of the CID, for the purposes of investigation.”

Searching For Another Job With Rival Company Is A Basic Right, Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude: Calcutta High Court

Case: M/s. Xpro India Limited. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 206

The Calcutta High Court has held that an employee searching for another job with better pay or benefits, even with a rival company, does not amount to moral turpitude for the purpose of termination of employment.

Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul held: "Thus looking for another job, even if with a rival company (though, not proved in this case) with better perks and facilities is a basic right and does not constitute moral turpitude as it is not contrary to honesty, modesty or good morals."

[S.91 CrPC] Accused Cannot Be Summoned To Produce Incriminating Evidence Against Himself: Calcutta High Court

Case: Ram Kishan Mittal Vs. The State of West Bengal.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 207

The Calcutta High Court has held that an accused cannot be summoned under section 91 of the CrPC to provide incriminating material against himself, which would be used against him in trial.

Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held: "It thus appears to this Court that from the series of reported decision as cited from the Bar it would reveal that it was never the legislative intent while enacting Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that court can summon an accused to produce any incriminating materials which may be used against him in trial."

Delivery Of Certified Copy Of Award After Signing & Authentication Constitutes Valid Service U/S 31(5) Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta HC

Case Title: J.D. ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS PURBACHAL UDYOG

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 208

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that delivery of a certified copy of the award, signed by the members, when properly addressed, stamped, and sent by speed post with delivery confirmed by the postal department, amounts to effective service even if the original signed copy of the award is not dispatched.

The present application has been filed under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking a declaration that the award dated 10.11.2020 is non-est and unenforceable. It is further prayed that the execution proceedings should be stayed pending disposal of the application.

[Arbitration] Executing Court Retains Jurisdiction To Modify Stay Order & Direct Deposit Of Remaining Amount With Interest: Calcutta HC

Case Title: The State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. M/S B B M ENTERPRISE.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 209

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that the court as an Executing Court retains jurisdiction to direct deposit of the remaining awarded amount along with interest before granting stay on the enforcement of the award, even if a stay order had already been passed upon filing an application to set aside the award, since modification of the conditions of the stay order is permissible