Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: July 2025
Srinjoy Das
7 Aug 2025 1:48 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEXHasin Jahan Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 152Smt. Kajari Karmaker @ Kajari Marick vs. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 153Shri C. Chitambaram Versus The Director of Transport Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 154Super Smelters Limited v United Cables Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal)...
NOMINAL INDEX
Hasin Jahan Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 152
Smt. Kajari Karmaker @ Kajari Marick vs. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 153
Shri C. Chitambaram Versus The Director of Transport Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 154
Super Smelters Limited v United Cables Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 155
Hemanta Kumar Das Vs. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 156
ARCL Organics Ltd. Versus Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 157
Shri Praveen Jain And Anr. vs.Tulsan Properties Private Limited And Anr Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 158
Tarun Kanti Naskar vs. State of West Bengal & Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 159
Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary v. Steel Authority of India and Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 160
Sreepad Bhiwaniwala v. Grant Thornton US Knowledge and Capability Center India Pvt. Ltd. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 161
Sanjoy Kumar Doloi & Anr. -vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 162
Commissioner of Service Tax Kolkata v. M/s Medicare Service (India) Pvt. Ltd. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 163
Bimla Devi Jaiswal v. M/s Indus Towers Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 164
Ripan Biswas Vs. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 165
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1, Kolkata v. Rungta Mines Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 166
Avirup Talukdar v. Avishek Talukdar & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 167
Krishnawathi v. Union of India & Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 168
M/s BESCO v M/s Hindon Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 169
Rasan @ RaisanHansda @ Raison Hansda -Versus- The State of West Bengal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 170
Bibek Paria & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 171
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v Vs. SURAJIT DEB AND OTHERS Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 172
Kaberi Dey & Ors. Vs. Sourav Bhattacharjee Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 173
Tutu Ghosh Vs. Enforcement Directorate Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 174
Tumpa Basak vs. Tufan Basak Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 175
Dilip Hari vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 176
AB v REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATH, CHANDERNAGORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 177
Murshidabad Zilla Parishad v Asian Care Development Private Limited and Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 178
The State of West Bengal Vs. Fagun Mandi @ Pui and Another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 179
Precept Talent Management Limited v. Sourav Chandidas Ganguly Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 180
ROHAN BUILDERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS BERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 181
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. RADHA KANTA BERA Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 182
Subhrangsu Panda Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 183
Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Limited v Marine Craft Engineers Private Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 184
X v State of West Bengal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 185
EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs AMARA RAJA ENERGY AND MOBILITY LIMITED Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 186
ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS
Case: Hasin Jahan Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 152
The Calcutta High Court has asked Indian cricketer Mohammad Shami to pay his estranged wife and daughter Rs 4 lakh per month as maintenance in his ongoing legal tussle against Hasin Jahan, his estranged wife.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held: "...Interim monetary relief as fixed by the Court below requires revision. The opposite party/husband's income, financial disclosure and earnings established that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. The petitioner wife who has remained un-married and is living independently with the child is entitled to a levelled maintenance that she enjoyed during her continuance of marriage and which reasonably secure her future as well as future of the child. In my considered opinion a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month to the petitioner no.1(wife) and Rs. 2,50,000/- to her daughter would be just fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for both the petitioners, till disposal of the main application."
Case Name: Smt. Kajari Karmaker @ Kajari Marick vs. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 153
A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that a Gazette notification is mandatory for recognition of a name change of a government employee or their family member for pensionary benefits. Further affidavits and newspaper publications alone are insufficient to meet this procedural requirement.
Case: Shri C. Chitambaram Versus The Director of Transport
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 154
Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury set aside a labour court's order that denied reinstatement to a bus driver, despite finding his termination to be illegal. The court held that when termination violates principles of natural justice, reinstatement should be awarded instead of mere compensation.
Case Title – Super Smelters Limited v United Cables Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 155
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar while allowing an application for appointment for arbitrator observed that the terms and conditions of the purchase order including the arbitration agreement would prevail over and supersede the terms and conditions of the tax invoice which does not contain an arbitration clause.
Case Title: Hemanta Kumar Das Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 156
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Sen has held that the land acquired under the Private and Public model attracts the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act) therefore the benefits to the land losers under section 31 of the Act read with Serial no.4 of the Second Schedule of the Act in the form of employment, annuity or a one time payment cannot be denied on the ground that the land that was acquired does not generate employment. If employment is not possible, benefits of other options must be given to the land losers as the objective of the Act is not only to provide compensation but also to rehabilitate and resettle the affected families.
Case Name: ARCL Organics Ltd. Versus Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 157
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a scheme of arrangement/compromise sanctioned under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, cannot be unilaterally frustrated by a secured creditor by invoking the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Order Passed By Bench Not Conferred With Determination By Roster Is A Nullity: Calcutta High Court
Case: Shri Praveen Jain And Anr. vs.Tulsan Properties Private Limited And Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 158
The Calcutta High Court has held that orders passed by a bench which has not been conferred with that particular determination by virtue of the roster decided by the Chief Justice would lack jurisdiction and be a nullity in the eyes of the law.
In answering a reference, the full bench of Justices Debangsu Basak, Shampa Sarkar and Hiranmay Bhattacharya held:
The reference is answered by holding that, an order passed by a Bench of the High Court not been conferred with the determination by virtue of the roster fixed by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, is vitiated by inherent lack of jurisdiction so as to render the order so passed a nullity in the eye of law and void ab initio.
Case Name : Tarun Kanti Naskar vs. State of West Bengal & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 159
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Smita Das De held that recovery of excess salary paid due to administrative error, without any fraud or misrepresentation by the employee is impermissible, especially after a long lapse of time.
Case Name: Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary v. Steel Authority of India and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 160
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar, while hearing a section 11 petition, observed that Courts at Durgapur would have the exclusive jurisdiction over the arbitral proceeding vide Clause 46.2.4 of the GCC, as the parties could not agree upon the rules of arbitration governing the proceedings as provided under Clause 46.2.5.
Case Title – Sreepad Bhiwaniwala v. Grant Thornton US Knowledge and Capability Center India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 161
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar while allowing an application for appointment of arbitrator has observed that where an employee has been terminated in terms of an employment contract which contains both Dispute Resolution clause and Termination clause, if it is not a case of termination simpliciter, then the dispute shall be referred to arbitration in terms of the dispute resolution clause.
Case: Sanjoy Kumar Doloi & Anr. -vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 162
The Calcutta High Court has debarred 'tainted' candidates whose jobs were cancelled by the Supreme Court from participating in the fresh SSC recruitment process in light of the cash for jobs recruitment scam.
Case Title: Commissioner of Service Tax Kolkata v. M/s Medicare Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 163
The Calcutta High Court stated that an appeal on service classification under 'insurance auxiliary service' not maintainable before the High Court.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing the appeal filed by the department/appellant under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 challenging the order passed by the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal).
Case Title – Bimla Devi Jaiswal v. M/s Indus Towers Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 164
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar, while allowing an application for appointment of arbitrator has observed that the issues of misjoinder/non-joinder of parties and whether the arbitration clause contained in the principal agreement was incorporated by reference in a subsequent agreement by the successors-in- interest would fall within the domain of the arbitral tribunal.
Case Title: Ripan Biswas Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 165
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that the constitutional court under Article 226 is obligated to ensure that no citizen is deprived of his legal and constitutional rights to which he is entitled. Therefore, to ensure that no injustice is meted out to the citizens, the court is empowered to mould reliefs in light of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In the present case, the rejection of the petitioner's candidature on medical grounds was set aside.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1, Kolkata v. Rungta Mines Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 166
The Calcutta High Court held that Internal CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price) method is most appropriate for ALP (Arm's Length Price) determination in captive power transactions.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing issue of whether the Internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method adopted by the assessee was right in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for power supplied by the assessee's Captive Power Plants (CPPs) to non-eligible units for transfer pricing adjustments.
Case Title – Avirup Talukdar v. Avishek Talukdar & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 167
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has observed that where a partnership deed provides that the heir of the deceased shall inherit the share and the partnership will continue, then the legal heir can seek reference of disputes to arbitration based on the arbitration clause in the deed of partnership. The Court highlighted that for non-signatories to be made a party to arbitration the requirement of law is that they must prima facie be connected to the arbitration agreement, which is satisfied in case of such a partnership deed.
Illegal Occupants Entitled To Electricity Despite Lack Of Occupancy Documents: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Krishnawathi v. Union of India & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 168
The Calcutta High Court circuit bench at Port Blair has ruled that an illegal occupant of government revenue land cannot be denied electricity solely on the ground of not furnishing ownership or occupancy documents listed in Clause 5.30 of the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission (JERC) Regulation, 2018.
It has been ruled by the Court that while the clause outlines documentary requirements, it can't be stretched to block essential services like electricity for individuals occupying land without formal title.
Case: M/s BESCO v M/s Hindon Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 169
A division bench of Calcutta High Court comprising Justices Uday Kumar and Sabyasachi Bhattacharya in a notable judgment has observed that the bar restricting the number of arbitrators to even numbers, which is applicable when the parties themselves appoint arbitrators under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”), is not attracted to a statutory arbitration under Section 18(3), Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act”). Thus, even if the number of the Council members who acted as arbitrators as in the present case is an even number, it per se does not vitiate the award.
Case Title: Rasan @ RaisanHansda @ Raison Hansda -Versus- The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 170
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Prasenjit Biswas has held that failure to examine the weapon recovered and alleged to have been used in the commission of the crime is not always fatal but in cases based on the circumstantial evidence, it becomes a vital link to establish a connection between the weapon and the crime.
Case: Bibek Paria & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 171
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge order relating to the recruitment process initiated by the West Bengal School Service Commission for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers of upper primary level of Classes, except work education and physical education classes IX–X and Classes XI-XII, Rules of 2025.
Calcutta High Court Acquits Three Sentenced To Death For Murdering And Dismembering Woman
Case: STATE OF WEST BENGAL v Vs. SURAJIT DEB AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 172
The Calcutta High Court has acquitted three persons, who were charged with murder and sentenced to death for allegedly killing a woman and cutting her body up into several pieces, before disposing of it outside Sealdah Railway station.
Jayanti Deb's body was discovered by the police in 2014, inside the parking lot of the railway station, dismembered into parts, which were kept inside a suitcase, backpack and bedroll. The police charged three people, including the victim's estranged husband, his partner and a third person who was allegedly used to dismember and dispose of the body. The trial court, gauging the evidence on record, had sentenced all three to death.
Case: Kaberi Dey & Ors. Vs. Sourav Bhattacharjee
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 173
The Calcutta High Court has highlighted the scope of, and framed guidelines for conducting pre-cognisance hearings under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Justice Dr Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held: “Therefore, the procedure that needs to be followed on receipt of a complaint, in view of section 223 and concerned relevant provisions under the BNSS, would be as follows:-..."
Case: Tutu Ghosh Vs. Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 174
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order taking cognizance of proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) Act, upon observing that cognizance had been taken by the special court, without complying with the mandatory requirement of holding a pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Case: Tumpa Basak vs. Tufan Basak
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 175
The Calcutta High Court has held that due to the development in jurisprudence around granting maintenance, it is no longer handed out as a payment for subsistence but instead to preserve the stability of one's lifestyle.
Case Name : Dilip Hari vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 176
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Gaurang Kanth held that pension and retiral benefits cannot be withheld from long-serving municipal employees solely because their details were not uploaded against sanctioned posts in the i-OSMS portal due to digital system lapses.
Case: AB v REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATH, CHANDERNAGORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 177
The Calcutta High Court has directed the municipal authorities to issue a fresh birth certificate to a minor seeking to give up her father's surname and adopt her mother's surname.
Justice Gaurang Kanth held: "The identity of a child, including her surname is an integral part of her personal development and autonomy. Courts have consistently held that when the change in name or surname does not adversely affect any legal or statutory right of a third party and is sought in furtherance of the child's best interest, such change ought to be allowed. In light of the above facts and the applicable legal position and having regard to the welfare of the minor child, which is of paramount consideration, this court is of the view that prayer of the petitioner deserves to be allowed."
Case Title – Murshidabad Zilla Parishad v Asian Care Development Private Limited and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 178
The Division Bench of Calcutta High comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar while deciding an appeal under Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) against the dismissal of an application for reference under Section 8, ACA observed that where a non-signatory party has been impleaded against whom no cause of action has been disclosed in the suit and who is a collateral beneficiary, the Court can refer the parties to arbitration. The Court noted that it was well aware that precedents allowed impleadment of such parties only when they were applicants; however, the spirit of Section 8, ACA would allow such reference even if the non-signatory party is a defendant.
Case: The State of West Bengal Vs. Fagun Mandi @ Pui and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 179
The Calcutta High Court has commuted the death sentence of two men, convicted for the rape and murder of a 5-year-old girl. It had been alleged that the men had sexually assaulted the girl using a bamboo shaft and later strangled her to death.
Case Title – Precept Talent Management Limited v. Sourav Chandidas Ganguly
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 180
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur dismissed a Section 34 petition filed against an arbitral award passed in favour of cricket player Sourav Ganguly (“Respondent”) by his former management agency, Precept Talent Management Ltd. (“Petitioner”).
While upholding the Arbitral Award, the Court observed that the award was well reasoned and the views taken by the Arbitral Tribunal were plausible. Therefore, the Award did not warrant any interference by the Court.
Case Title: ROHAN BUILDERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS BERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 181
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the courts are not prohibited from extending the mandate of the Arbitrator multiple times if sufficient cause is established under section 29A(5) of the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, it extended the mandate of the Arbitrator beyond the timeline set by the Supreme Court.
This is the second filed by the Petitioner seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitrator under section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
Case: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. RADHA KANTA BERA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 182
The Calcutta High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man, who was convicted for beheading a lady over suspicions of her being a 'witch.'
A division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md Shabbar Rashidi held: "His overall conduct in the correctional home was found to be good. His age is also of consideration. Moreover, he had suffered a fall from the roof of bus resulting in his mental illness which often turns violent for which the family had to keep him detained...We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, imprisonment for life would be sufficient punishment instead of death penalty. We are not minded to confirm the death sentence awarded by the learned trial court."
Case: Subhrangsu Panda Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 183
The Calcutta High Court has held that the driving license of a citizen cannot be impounded, suspended or revoked by traffic police personnel. It was held that while the police may seize a license from a driver over allegations of reckless driving, the same must be forwarded to the court for cognisance. If found guilty, the license may then be sent to the licensing authority for revocation or suspension.
Case Title – Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Limited v Marine Craft Engineers Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 184
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Om Narayan Rai while deciding a Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) appeal, set aside an order passed in Section 34, ACA petition on the ground that the court passing it lacked the jurisdiction to pass such an order. The concerned judge had the power to determine only such applications under Section 34 which did not pertain to commercial matters, whereas the power to decide Section 34 applications of commercial nature vested with another judge.
Case: X v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 185
The Calcutta High Court has held that mere harassment and abuse at the workplace would not attract the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 509 of the IPC.
Justice Dr Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held: "At the cost of repetitions I am constrained to say that even the complaint does not disclose that the petitioner abused her, it only refers the word harassment. In the statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C, the de facto complaint had only alleged of abusing her that too without detailing the mode and manner of such abuse. Mere harassment at workplace or abusing her at workplace per se may not constitute an offence under section 509 of IPC, unless essential ingredients are fulfilled."
Case: EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs AMARA RAJA ENERGY AND MOBILITY LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 186
While allowing an injunction application by Exide Industries limited against a competitior who was infriniging on its trade dress, the Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur held," “The fact that an existing competitor in comparison to a new entrant in the market has deliberately, intentionally and in a calculated manner attempted to reap from the cultivated soil of a trade rival is impermissible.”