Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Calcutta High Court held that no infringement of a right relating to the trade name or other intellectual property had been alleged, hence the suit was maintainable before the Commercial Division.
The Court noted that if no sitting Judge were made available, the State is to constitute a Commission headed by a retired Judge of the Calcutta High Court, in accordance with the Commissions of Inquiry Act.
The Court held that the expression “at its option” under Section 36(1)(vii-a)(a), Income-tax Act, 1961, could not be treated as surplusage or deprived of their ordinary meaning.
The Court found prima facie nexus between the petitioner and entities allegedly involved in diversion of government funds; observes that abuse of official position cannot be ruled out at this stage.
In Nikunj Berlia v. High Court at Calcutta, WPA 4575 of 2020, decided on 22 February 2021, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court considered proposals for standardising the quality and size of paper used for court filings.
A suit was filed alleging that the video, uploaded on 9 October 2026 on the YouTube channel “Bcubed (Breaking Boundaries with Sabeer Bhatia)” in collaboration with “Shadow Citizens”, and subsequently posted on X, contained false and defamatory imputations against the company and the Adani Group.
In considering Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Calcutta High Court held that referring the dispute to arbitration would require it to treat the existing consent decree as non-binding on the charterer, which could not be done at the execution stage in the absence of proceedings to set aside the decree.
The petitioner is a former Minister of the Government of West Bengal and former Vice-Chairman of South Dum Dum Municipality. The proceedings arose out of an alleged municipal recruitment scam in West Bengal.
The Court noted that that the continuation of the criminal proceedings was unwarranted and amounted to an abuse of the process of law, having regard to the civil and proprietary nature of the dispute.
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.