#Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court quashed lower maintenance orders, ruling that any award under the PWDV Act must be grounded in sworn affidavits of both parties’ assets and liabilities. The decision forces litigants in domestic violence cases to furnish full financial disclosures before maintenance can be granted, impacting spouses and children seeking support.

The Calcutta High Court held that COVID-19 limitation relaxations cannot revive suits time-barred pre-pandemic, dismissing an appeal delayed by 2179 days and ruling that unsubstantiated age/ill-health claims lack sufficient cause under Section 5 Limitation Act.

The Calcutta High Court held that emails showing consensus ad idem can support a specific performance injunction without strict Section 65B compliance, clarifying that informal electronic evidence may prove contracts in property disputes.

The Calcutta HC held that res judicata does not bar a later Section 65B affidavit for distinct documents, allowing supplementary electronic evidence. This aids litigants in insurance claims by allowing extra digital records without procedural bar.

Absorption of contractual technical staff must consider original qualification at appointment, not just the redesignated post, ruled Calcutta HC. The ruling protects service quality under the National Policy for ICT in Judiciary and impacts district court technical staff.

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 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 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.

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 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 nullified an arbitral award that overstepped its mandate by reshaping the partners’ business, deeming such excess a breach of public policy. It further held that Section 69 of the Partnership Act does not forbid arbitration merely because no dissolution plea was filed, guiding future partnership arbitrations.

The Calcutta High Court reinstated a monthly maintenance order, ruling that Section 125 CrPC proceedings are summary and do not demand civil proof of a valid marriage. This prevents destitute spouses from losing relief on technical grounds and clarifies the evidentiary burden in welfare cases.

A dismissal of a complaint for procedural default does not extinguish the power to treat a subsequent petition under CrPC s.156(3) as a new FIR, even when the facts are identical. This safeguards complainants by ensuring procedural lapses cannot shield alleged offences.

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a party cannot seek arbitration under Section 8 while simultaneously disputing the existence, authenticity, or execution of the agreement containing the arbitration clause. This establishes a clear bar against contradictory pleadings, reinforcing that arbitration cannot be a tactical tool when the foundation of the agreement is denied - a critical check for litigants in commercial disputes.