Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court found serious doubts regarding the validity of the transfer and authenticity of payment records based on the applicant’s dual role as attorney and purchaser. The Court held that such disputed questions required a civil trial and not adjudication on affidavits. Hence, it dismissed the application, refusing to direct execution of the conveyance deed.
The Court held that under Section 74, CGST Act, each financial year is a separate unit for tax determination, and limitation periods apply independently. It found that the respondent-GST Authorities acted illegally by issuing a consolidated notice and ignoring documentary evidence provided by State Bank of India (SBI). Consequently, the impugned show-cause notice and order were declared void and without jurisdiction.
The case underscores that when attesting witnesses are unavailable, a will can still be proved through other admissible evidence under Sections 69 and 71 of the Evidence Act, provided the execution and testamentary capacity of the testator are established.
A suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits resulted in a decree dated 09-01-2024, which was declared a nullity by the Division Bench on the ground that it had been decided by a Judge lacking the requisite commercial roster under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The President of India has appointed Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty, Judge of the Calcutta High Court, to perform the duties of the office of the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court under Article 223 of the Constitution, consequent upon the retirement of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul on 20 June 2026.
“The prime concern and endeavour of law should be to secure justice on the basis of truth, which ought to be unearthed through a committed and competent investigating agency.” observes the Court.
Calcutta High Court held that an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by one party lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between both the parties.
Newly elevated Judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Rajesh Bindal, celebrates his 62nd birthday today. Prior to being elevated to the Supreme Court, Justice Bindal was serving as the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court.
It was alleged that the Calcutta High Court had arbitrarily cancelled the appointment of petitioners who were appointed as Assistant Teachers of Government aided primary school in the year 2017-2018.
Justice Aniruddha Bose who celebrates his 64th birthday today, had served the High Courts of Calcutta and Jharkhand as a Judge prior to being elevated to the Supreme Court in 2019.
Calcutta High Court observed that no sum due will be recoverable from any consumer after a period of two years from the date when such sum first became due unless such sum was shown continuously recoverable as arrears of charges of electricity supply.
Justice Prakash Shrivastava retires today after being the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court for one and half years.
The Calcutta High Court quashed the imposition and recovery of penalty by the respondent authorities and directed them to refund the penalty amount and issue discharge certificate in favour of the petitioners.
Calcutta High Court held that all the unilateral appointment of arbitrators is not invalid unless the arbitrator’s relationship falls within the Seventh Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
While quashing the impugned criminal proceeding against the petitioners, the Court held that a defaulter borrower holds the secured asset only in trust or symbolic possession and even if the petitioners have entered the said property, the same cannot be marked out as trespassers in other’s’ property.
Calcutta High Court upheld AAAR’s order and held that Polypropylene Leno Bags made from Plastic Granules cannot be treated as Textile Articles.
While examining the difference between false promise to marry and breach of promise to marry, the Court held that from the facts and circumstances of the case i.e., the extent of being physically involved with her on the false promise to marry in near future. The defacto-complainant being already married, the petitioner cannot be held liable for committing the alleged offences.
Calcutta High Court | While deciding a revision petition, Tirthankar Ghosh*, J. held that no offence under Ss. 417 and 426 of
The Supreme Court observed that if allegations in the petition are vague and are not specific with respect to the alleged offences, it cannot lead to an order for registration of an FIR and investigation on the accusation of commission of the offences alleged.
Justice Dipankar Datta, was born on 09-02-1965 in a Bengali family. He served as a Judge in the Calcutta High Court, and as a Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, then he was sworn in as Supreme Court Judge by Chief Justice Dr D.Y. Chandrachud on 12-12-2022