Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Calcutta High Court found the complaint lacked essential ingredients, the summons were mechanical, and the complainant was a stranger to the loan.
The High Court directed further investigation through the specialised cyber-forensic machinery under the supervision of the Deputy Commissioner of Police/Specialised Cyber Cell.
The Court, considering the evidence on record, concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for money, therefore awarded the payment of ₹47,00,000 with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the suit until repayment.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi formerly serving as Judge of Calcutta High Court was appointed to the Supreme Court on 10 March 2025 and is in line to become the Chief Justice of India in 2031.
The conduct anterior to the levy may give rise to suspicion but it cannot, by itself, discharge the burden of proving that the goods actually removed after 1st March 2003 bore a brand name. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
The Court ensured that procedural obstacles did not deprive the petitioner and her brother of consideration under the guardianship framework.
Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes.
The event was attended by Chief Justice R.V. Ghuge; Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty; Senior Advocates Sudipto Sarkar, President of the Bar Library Club, and Jayanta Mitra, former Advocate General of West Bengal; Senior Advocate Sanjiv Sen, grandnephew of late Senior Advocate Ashoke Kumar Sen; and Barrister Ashoke Kumar Sen Jr., his grandson.
The Court held that a cooperative bank cannot withhold gratuity indefinitely on the basis of administrative autonomy, or pending criminal proceedings when no applicable service rule authorises such withholding.
The Court held that so long as one spouse of a “commissioning couple” satisfies the age criteria prescribed under Section 21(g), Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, the couple cannot be denied access to Assisted Reproductive Technology services merely because the other spouse has exceeded the upper age-limit, following a consistent line of decisions of the Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh and other High Courts.
These appointments assume significance due to recent reassurance expressed by CJI Surya Kant regarding filling the vacant positions of Chief Justice in several High Courts.
Calcutta High Court ruled that the goodwill and reputation of Fox & Mandal belong to the firm, not to the family of its former partners.
The petition raises a sensitive and classic judicial conundrum: Where does a genuine, conscious personal choice end, and where does administrative coercion begins?
The Collegium recommended appointment of Permanent Judges for High Courts of Punjab & Haryana and Calcutta and term extension for six Additional Judges of Calcutta High Court.
The Court held that although the rules of a competitive selection process cannot ordinarily be changed after the process has commenced, a uniform corrective measure adopted after expert scrutiny of defective questions will not necessarily amount to an impermissible change in the rules where the measure treats all candidates equally and causes no demonstrable prejudice. The decision also reinforces the limited scope of judicial review over expert assessment in competitive examinations.
The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on 6 August 2026, recommended the elevation of Justice V. Kameswar Rao, Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge, Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra as Chief Justices of the Patna, Calcutta, Bombay, and Punjab and Haryana High Courts, respectively.
A paper mill’s new owner took over under an approved resolution plan, but the electricity board still wanted over ₹2.5 crore in old dues and surcharges before switching the power back on. The Calcutta High Court said the clean slate principle doesn’t have exceptions for electricity bills.
The Court reiterated the golden rule of law that when a specific statutory provision to do certain act is codified under the statute, such an act must be and should be done in the same manner as codified under the statute or not at all. Any other mode is expressly forbidden in law.
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.