Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: May 2025

NOMINAL INDEX

Professor Bidyut Chakraborty and Ors. Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 98

Padmavathi Sakkinala v. State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 99

Asish Kumar Sen @ Bapi v/s. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 100

P & P Business Private Limited vs. Marco Francesco Shoes (India) Private Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 101

Metsil Exports Private Limited and Another Vs. West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 102

Sri Arun Kumar Jindal & Anr. VS. Smt. Rajni Poddar & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 103

Star Track Agency Private Limited Vs. Efcalon Tie Up Private Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (104)

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9, Kolkata Vs. Chandravadan Desai (HUF) Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 105

Dr. Satinath Samanta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation:2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 106

Ananta Barman and Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 108

NCLT Advocates Bar Association & Ors. -Vs- Union of India & Ors Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 109

Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata South, GST Bhawan v. M/s Diamond Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 110

VIRGO SOFTECH LIMITED & ANR. VS SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 111

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. The Reliance Jute Mills (International Limited) Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 113

Dhananjai Lifestyle Limited vs. Sanvie Retail Private Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 114

Mittal Technopack Private Limited Vs Ideal Real Estate Private Limited And Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 115

ITC LIMITED VS THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADEMARK Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 116

Rabindra Nath Das Versus Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 117

Dibyajyoti Ghosh v. The Coal India Ltd. & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 118

Steel Authority of India Limited Vs H. R. Construction Private Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 119

Joni Sk Vs. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 120

BVEPL BHARTIA (JV) VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 121

Abhijit Mitra Vs. Smt. Dipa Mitra (Ghosh) Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 122

MAYA BOURI Versus M/s. EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED & ORS. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 123

Suman Ray @ Suman Roy -Vs- State of West Bengal & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 124

ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS

Calcutta HC Declines To Quash SC/ST Act Case Against Ex-Visva Bharati VC For Saying He Won't Allow SC, ST Or OBC Staff To Enter His Office

Case: Professor Bidyut Chakraborty and Ors. Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 98

The Calcutta High Court has declined to quash a case registered under the SC/AT (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against former Vice Chancellor of Visva Bharati University, Prof Bidyut Chakraborty, and other office bearers who were accused of making casteist remarks against an employee of the university at a meeting.

Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held: "The Central Conference Hall of the University within the four walls of the building of the University is considered to be a public place...The meeting was attended by senior officers ...in the said meeting, the petitioner no. 1 abused opposite party no. 2 and further made a statement that officers from SC, ST or OBC Categories would not be allowed to enter inside his office chamber and those categories officers would not make any mobile call to him from the date of meeting...such utterance prima facie constitutes an offence...Such restrictions based on specific caste identity, and the act takes place in a public view."

“No Work, No Pay” Doesn't Apply If Appointment Delay Is Due To Authorities' Fault : Calcutta HC

Case Name : Padmavathi Sakkinala v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 99

A division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Harish Tandon, J and Prasenjit Biswas, J held that the principle of “No Work, No Pay” does not apply when the delay in appointment is due to the fault of the authorities, thus entitling the affected person to monetary benefits.

Calcutta High Court Quashes 25-Yr-Old Case Against Man Booked For Mere Presence At Scene Of Theft, House Trespass

Case: Asish Kumar Sen @ Bapi v/s. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 100

The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against a man, who was booked for the offences of inter alia theft and house trespass under Sections 448/379/461/417/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

In quashing the case arising out of the events in 1999, Justice Suvra Ghosh held:

It is a fact that delay is a relevant factor and every accused is entitled to speedy justice in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But attending facts and circumstances leading to the delay should also be taken into consideration in deciding the issue. If prima facie material is found against the accused in a particular case, the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay. Herein, no offence as alleged having been made out against the petitioner either in the FIR or in course of investigation, allowing the proceeding to continue against the petitioner shall be an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner having suffered the ordeal of trial for considerable period of time should not be made to suffer further due to continuation of the proceeding against him. 

Arbitrator Can Fix Fee In Consultation With Parties Without Recourse To A&C Act; Quantum Can't Be Challenged Under Article 227: Calcutta HC

Case Title: P & P Business Private Limited vs. Marco Francesco Shoes (India) Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 101

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Bihas Ranjan De. has observed that an arbitrator can indeed fix his remuneration, and this can be done in a manner that may not comply with the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provided that such a decision is made in consultation with the parties involved. When parties contractually agree on a fee, the Fourth Schedule will not be applicable.

Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Provision Allowing Consumers To Be Penalised For Excess Electricity Usage

Case: Metsil Exports Private Limited and Another Vs. West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 102

The Calcutta High Court has struck down a state law which allowed electricity companies to penalise consumers who consumed more electricity than the limit prescribed by the companies.

The impugned rule was under Regulation 4.4 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2011 (for short, “the 2011 Tariff Regulations”), framed by the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (WBERC). 

Absence Of Express Liberty In Withdrawal Order To File Fresh Execution Petition Does Not Deny Benefit U/S 14 Of Limitation Act: Calcutta HC

Case Title: Sri Arun Kumar Jindal & Anr. VS. Smt. Rajni Poddar & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 103

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De has held that withdrawal of an execution petition for enforcement of an arbitral award on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, when such ground is clearly stated in the withdrawal application, does not bar the petitioner from refiling before the appropriate forum, even if the court's order does not expressly grant liberty to refile. Accordingly, the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) cannot be denied.

Evaluation Of Alternative Propositions By Arbitrator For Interim Award Does Not Constitute Inherent Contradiction Or Perversity: Calcutta HC

Case Title: Star Track Agency Private Limited Vs. Efcalon Tie Up Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (104)

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar has held that considering alternative propositions by the Arbitrator and proceeding on the premise that the award holder would be entitled to an interim award under either scenario does not amount to an inherent contradiction. Evaluating alternatives is a legitimate judicial exercise and does not tantamount to perversity.

Calcutta High Court Upholds Quashing Of ₹7.29 Crore Penalty Imposed On Dissolved HUF

Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9, Kolkata Vs. Chandravadan Desai (HUF)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 105

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the quashing of penalty proceedings initiated against a dissolved Hindu Joint Family. 

A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) upheld the ITAT order which had relied on a Supreme Court ruling to declare the penalty action void-ab-initio.

Delay In Appointment, Employee Entitled For Qualifying Service For Pension, But No Wages: Calcutta HC

Case: Dr. Satinath Samanta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. 

Citation:2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 106

A division bench of Calcutta High Court consisting of Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Supratim Bhattacharya allowed a petition that was filed by a doctor, whose pension was denied due to insufficient qualifying service. The court ruled that if the Government delays in implementing court mandated absorption of an employee, the period of delay should be counted towards the qualifying service for pension purposes. The court held that the petitioner cannot be penalised for the delay caused by the authorities.

When Assessee-Company Can Prove Genuineness Of Transaction, Delhi HC's 'NR Portfolio' Judgment Not Applicable: Calcutta HC

Case title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 1, Kolkata v. Wise Investment Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 107

The Calcutta High Court has made it clear that the Delhi High Court decisions in NR Portfolio and Navodaya Castles will hold no value where an assessee-company establishes the identity of its shares subscribers, creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transactions.

In CIT v. NR Portfolio Private Limited (2014) and in CITA v. Navodaya Castles Private Limited (2014), the Delhi High Court had held that mere production of incorporation details, PAN Nos. or the fact that third persons or company had filed income tax details in case of a private limited company may not be sufficient when surrounding and attending facts predicate a cover up. These facts indicate and reflect proper paperwork or documentation but genuineness, creditworthiness, identity are deeper and obtrusive.

[NDPS Act] Default Bail Can't Be Granted Upon Timely Filing Of Chargesheet, Even If Not Accompanied With Chemical Report: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Ananta Barman and Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 108

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi has held that the right to default bail is defeated once a chargesheet is filed within the statutory time period. Even if the chargesheet is not accompanied by a Chemical Examination Report, it cannot be deemed incomplete provided the evidence collected during the investigation is sufficient to proceed against the accused. A charge sheet without the Chemical Examination Report filed within time is nonetheless a charge sheet which disentitles the accused to default bail.

Calcutta High Court Upholds Order Dismissing Plea Challenging Shift Of NCLT Premises To New Town

Case: NCLT Advocates Bar Association & Ors. -Vs- Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 109

The Calcutta High Court has upheld a single bench order declining a plea challenging the move to shift the NCLT Kolkata premises located near the High Court, to a new building in the city's New Town area, as proposed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

A division bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Apurba Sinha Ray held: "The question, however, is not whether the shift in location is beneficial or detrimental per se, but whether this Court can, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, intervene in such matters of administrative discretion. The answer to that must be in the negative."

Excise Duty Under Sugar Cess Act Can Be Claimed As CENVAT Credit: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata South, GST Bhawan v. M/s Diamond Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 110

The Calcutta High Court stated that excise duty under sugar tax act can be claimed as CENVAT credit.

The Bench consists of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing the issue of whether payment of duty under Sugar Cess Act, 1982 can be claimed as Cenvat Credit when the Cenvat Credit Rules does not provide payment of cess under the Sugar Cess Act, 1982 as not being eligible under Rule 3 of the said Rules.

'Non-Consideration Of SC Judgment Amounts To Patent Illegality': Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Award On Grounds Of Unilateral Appointment

Case Title: VIRGO SOFTECH LIMITED & ANR. VS SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 111

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that non-consideration of a judgment of the Supreme Court amounts to patent illegality, which is a valid ground for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) particularly when the award is passed by an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by one party.

Shortfall In Pensionable Service Caused By State's Delay In Absorption Can't Defeat Pension Claim : Calcutta High Court

Case Name : Dr. Satinath Samanta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 112

A division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that the delay by the State in absorbing an employee cannot be used to deny pension benefits if such delay alone causes shortfall in qualifying service.

Execution Of Discharge Voucher Not A Bar To Claim Higher Compensation If Provided For By IRDA Circular: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. The Reliance Jute Mills (International Limited)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 113

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that once the liability or quantum of a claim under an insurance policy is established, the Insurance Company must not withhold the claim amount and must comply with Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) Circular which entitles the Insured to claim a higher amount.

It further held that the Circular clearly provided that if an insured is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, they are entitled to approach judicial or statutory forums for higher compensation. Execution of a discharge voucher does not amount to estoppel, nor does it bar the insured from pursuing additional claims.

Interim Measures U/S 9 Of Arbitration Can't Be Sought By MSME During Conciliation Proceedings: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Dhananjai Lifestyle Limited vs. Sanvie Retail Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 114

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act can be sought by the MSME only after mandatory conciliation before the MSME Council fails and the dispute proceeds to arbitration—either conducted by the Council or referred to an arbitral institution. Only then do the provisions of the Arbitration Act apply. Consequently, seeking relief under the Arbitration Act during conciliation is clearly prohibited under section 77 of the Arbitration Act.

Court Is Not Appropriate Forum To Seek Interim Relief During Arbitration Proceedings: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Mittal Technopack Private Limited Vs Ideal Real Estate Private Limited And Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 115

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the appropriate forum for seeking interim relief after the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal is the Tribunal itself under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. Recourse to the court under Section 9 is permitted during the arbitration proceedings only if the remedy under Section 17 is found to be inefficacious.

Denying Patent On Grounds Of Morality & Health Without Scientific Evidence Is Unsustainable: Calcutta High Court

Case: ITC LIMITED VS THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADEMARK

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 116

The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order passed by the Patent Controller, denying a patent to ITC Limited for a “A Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol.” The patent was denied on grounds of public health and morality, keeping in mind The Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage, and Advertisement) Act, 2019.

Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur held: "The preconceived and subjective notion that all tobacco products causes serious prejudice to human life and health without any reliance on scientific or technical evidence or any other supporting facts is unsustainable. The finding that the subject invention is contrary to public order and morality is unreasoned, cryptic and without any basis. The fact that the Controller was of the view without consideration of any independent scientific or technical evidence that the usage of the invention affects public order and morality cannot be the basis for rejecting the invention."

Departmental Proceedings After Compulsory Retirement, Since Not Under Rule 9, CCS (Pension) Rules, Can't Continue : Calcutta HC

Case: Rabindra Nath Das Versus Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 117

A division bench consisting of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra of the Calcutta High Court dismissed two cross appeals. Both appeals arose out of a single judge order that directed the release of retirement benefits to a former RPF officer. The court explained that proceedings initiated under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) Rules, 1987, cannot continue after compulsory retirement. Further, the court also held that since the proceedings were not initiated under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (“Pension Rules”), the pension benefits could not be withheld either.

Punishment Of Censure, Claim For Promotion During Disciplinary Proceedings Rightly Rejected : Calcutta Hc

Case Name : Dibyajyoti Ghosh v. The Coal India Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 118

A Division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty & Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that employee against whom disciplinary proceedings were pending at time of recommendation for promotion can be granted promotion only prospectively after the conclusion of proceedings.

Original Claim Can Be Amended At Argument Stage In Arbitration Proceedings, Provisions Of CPC Do Not Apply Strictly: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Steel Authority of India Limited Vs H. R. Construction Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 119

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) has held that an amendment to the original claim may be permitted during arbitral proceedings, even at the stage of final arguments, particularly when costs have been imposed on the party seeking the amendment and accepted by the opposite party—provided the amendment does not materially alter the nature of the original claim or cause prejudice.

It further held that while Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) provisions may be applied in arbitration, they are not to be strictly enforced to bar such amendments under Order VI Rule 17, given the more flexible framework of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Court Does Not Sit In Appeal Over Medical Expert's Opinion, Interference Permitted Only In Case Of Arbitrariness: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Joni Sk Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 120

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision or opinion of medical experts, nor can it substitute its own judgment for that of the experts. Judicial interference is warranted only in cases where there is clear evidence of mala fides, arbitrariness, or inconsistency on the face of the expert opinion. This case does not present any such grounds.

Mere Use Of "Arbitration" In Heading Does Not Create Binding Clause If Fresh Consent Of Parties Is Required For Reference: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: BVEPL BHARTIA (JV) VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 121

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the mere use of the words “arbitration” or “arbitrator” in a clause does not constitute an arbitration agreement if the clause requires or contemplates a further or fresh consent of the parties before referring the dispute to arbitration.

Calcutta High Court Slams Trial Judge For Patriarchal Mindset While Denying Divorce To Husband, Takes Objection To 'Copy-Paste' Orders

Case: Abhijit Mitra Vs. Smt. Dipa Mitra (Ghosh)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 122

The Calcutta High Court has granted divorce to a man on grounds of cruelty by his wife in a 2018 divorce case. The man had been denied divorce by the trial court in an order which was found to be "copy-pasted" from earlier orders by the trial court in matrimonial suits.

While finding the trial judge's notions "patriarchal" and "condescending", a division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar held:

"The entire mindset of the learned Trial Judge appears to spring up from a patriarchal and condescending approach, thereby attributing a condescending role to the husband, to advice his wife properly and also to condone cruel acts of the wife by trying to “bridge the gap” between the parties. Such observations have nothing to do with the law on the subject. The settled law in matrimonial disputes is that the court has to look at the conduct of the parties from their perspective and to come to a finding as to whether there is any cruelty, either mental or physical, perpetrated by either of the spouses against the other so as to make it impossible for normal conjugal life to be led together by them."

Dependents Of Deceased Worker Entitled To Automatic Compensation, No Separate Application Required: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: MAYA BOURI Versus M/s. EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 123

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that once a person qualifies for benefits under a scheme, those benefits must be extended to them even if they have not submitted an application seeking such benefits.

Pet Owners Must Take Measures To Ensure That Animals Don't Cause Danger To Others: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Suman Ray @ Suman Roy -Vs- State of West Bengal & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 124

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Uday Kumar observed that under Section 289 of the IPC, it is the duty of animal owners or possessors to ensure their animals do not cause probable danger or grievous harm to human life. Given the serious risk posed by dog attacks, owners must take adequate measures to prevent any harm. The provision's use of "knowingly or negligently omits" points out that liability arising either from actual knowledge of the animal's dangerous tendencies or from a failure to exercise due care in its management.