Calcutta High Court judgments

The Calcutta High Court held that Section 7(3) of the WB Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 cannot strike out a tenant’s defence unless rent arrears are admitted or judicially determined, requiring landlords to prove arrears before striking defences.

Calcutta HC ruled a child neither orphaned nor abandoned is not in need of care and protection under Sec 2(14) JJ Act, directing CWC to restore custody to adoptive parents by 18 Sept 2026 at 4:00pm and to submit quarterly welfare reports from Dec 2026.

The Calcutta High Court held that filing an eviction suit itself is a notice to quit under Section 106 TPA. This restores landlords’ right to possession and allows recovery of mesne profits without a separate notice.

Calcutta HC held that CGST Rule 96(10), omitted without a saving clause, has no legal existence and cannot ground proceedings, quashing GST notice against Glen Industries. This confirms that actions under omitted rules are invalid, impacting taxpayers.

The Calcutta High Court set aside HPCL’s withdrawal of LOI and forfeiture of ₹20,000 deposit, holding it violated RPWD Act 2016’s reasonable accommodation and directing reconsideration of petitioner request to substitute a disabled applicant in 8 weeks.

The Calcutta High Court quashed NI Act proceedings against whole-time directors who were not signatories to the dishonoured cheques, ruling that vicarious liability under Section 141 requires specific averments linking the director to the transaction. The decision clarifies that a mere corporate role is insufficient to attract liability, affecting directors in cheque bounce disputes.

Calcutta HC held that a probationer's termination is punitive only if preceded by a formal enquiry into misconduct allegations culminating in guilt. It upheld Vijaya Bank's termination for unsatisfactory performance as simpliciter, clarifying the stigma test for probationers.

The Division Bench held that the vendor's obligation to transfer 51% shares and reconstitute the board was a condition precedent, so its non-performance discharged the purchaser's payment duty. The purchaser's SMS communication avoiding the contract was lawful, and the vendor's Rs. 5.51 crore damages claim failed for want of proof. The purchaser's Rs. 1 crore advance was refunded under Section 65 of the Contract Act.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the arbitration agreement overrides the statutory venue of the West Bengal Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council for post-award extensions under Section 29A. This decision limits parties’ ability to seek extensions at the WBMSEFC, reinforcing the primacy of contractual forum selection in MSME arbitrations.

Calcutta HC ruled banks cannot partially freeze accounts on mere mule suspicion without evidence, notice, and hearing - violating natural justice and RBI Master Directions. Ordered defreeze with lien only on disputed ₹10 lakh and a six-week decision deadline, affirming proportionality and due process for account holders.

The court held that full deposit of Employees' Provident Fund dues before chargesheet filing erases the dishonest intention essential for criminal breach of trust under Sections 406 and 409 IPC. Continuing prosecution after complete restitution constitutes an abuse of process, particularly where the default arose from economic collapse of a single-screen cinema rather than fraudulent intent.

The Calcutta High Court set aside an interim injunction in a defamation suit, ruling the trial court erred by not applying the Bonnard Principle. A plaintiff must prove the defence of truth is certain to fail at trial - not merely establish a prima facie case - to obtain pre-trial restraint. The decision raises the threshold for interim relief in defamation, strengthening free speech protections.

The Calcutta High Court quashed a Section 498A complaint against parents-in-law, ruling it was a mala fide counterblast to an eviction order passed under the Senior Citizens Act. The court held that omnibus allegations lacking specific dates or overt acts constitute an abuse of process, shielding elderly litigants from retaliatory criminal proceedings.

Limitation for executing a 2008 arbitral award runs from 23 October 2015, when amended Section 36 made awards immediately enforceable, not the award date. Pre-amendment law required the Section 34 challenge period to expire first, blocking execution for seven years per National Aluminium. The ruling shields award holders from statutory gaps that delayed enforcement.

The Calcutta High Court held that an oral agreement for land sale, evidenced by parties' conduct, establishes a prima facie case for specific performance warranting a temporary injunction. The court ruled the suit does not fall under the Commercial Courts Act, and a plea for alternative damages does not disentitle the plaintiff from injunctive relief.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that an insufficiently stamped agreement for sale in a specific performance suit must be impounded under the Indian Stamp Act rather than leading to dismissal of the suit. The court remanded the matter for payment of deficit stamp duty and adjudication on merits, clarifying that stamp deficiency is a curable procedural defect, not a substantive bar to relief.

Calcutta HC ruled Umadevi is no blanket bar to regularizing daily-rated employees with 10+ years service appointed through regular selection (employment exchange/interview). Authorities must consider regularization and, interim, pay 1/30th salary plus DA per the 1988 OM. The decision protects regularly selected long-term employees from casual labour classification.

The Calcutta High Court held the 7th Industrial Tribunal had proper territorial jurisdiction and that a contractual clause cannot deprive it of statutory authority, so domestic-enquiry findings and back-wage awards remain governed by the Industrial Disputes Act. The ruling protects employees from employer-imposed contractual limits.

The Calcutta High Court set aside the FIR, ruling that Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita demands a direct causal link between the accused’s act and the victim’s death. A contractor’s failure to provide safety equipment alone, without proof that the omission caused the fatality, does not attract criminal liability. The decision narrows the reach of criminal negligence provisions for employers and contractors across India.

The Calcutta High Court held that, under Rule 86A CGST, GST authorities must provide a pre-decisional hearing before blocking a taxpayer’s Electronic Credit Ledger, reinforcing natural-justice safeguards. Accordingly, the order freezing Rs 4.43 crore of input tax credit was set aside, restoring the petitioner’s right to claim ITC and signalling that tax officials must follow due-process before restricting credit.

Calcutta HC directed SAIL to re-invite the MSME petitioner, allowing it to match the lowest-bidder’s price because the bid fell within the 15 % band mandated by the 2012 MSE purchase-preference policy. The court held that not ticking the MSME option on GeM does not defeat eligibility, and a mandamus can compel compliance. The ruling safeguards registered MSMEs in public procurement, ensuring they can compete even if the portal preference box is missed.

The Calcutta High Court held that the fifteen-working-day period mandated by Section 12(4) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act for a no-confidence meeting cannot be extended, even when police support is lacking, and reinstated the ousted Pradhan. This enforces strict statutory compliance for gram panchayats statewide.

The Calcutta High Court held that a suit cannot proceed under Clause 12 of the 1865 Letters Patent unless the plaint establishes a territorial nexus with the court’s jurisdiction, and therefore ordered the leave to be withdrawn and the case remitted to a competent court. This clarifies that litigants must file such actions in courts that have a direct connection to the cause of action, affecting parties seeking relief against central authorities under the Letters Patent.

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the FIR, ruling that the accused cannot be charged under Section 85 of the BNS Act because they are neither the husband nor a blood, marital or adoptive relative of the complainant’s husband. This narrows liability under the Act to immediate family members.