Kabita Manna & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Calcutta High Court — 8 September 2026

Facts: Government authorities were directed to remove encroachments from adjoining government land. During the demolition, however, a two-storeyed building standing on the petitioners’ private raiyati land was also demolished. Revenue reports and site sketches established that the private property extended beyond the area lawfully identified for removal.

Issue: Whether the State could be directed to provide restitution and compensation where government authorities exceeded the lawful area of demolition.

Decision: The Court held that the authorities had exceeded their limits and unlawfully demolished the petitioners’ private construction. It directed the State authority to reconstruct the building according to the sanctioned plan within two years, provide free alternative accommodation until completion, and pay ₹10 lakh as compensatory relief. The judgment demonstrates the High Court’s power under Article 226 to grant effective restitutory and compensatory remedies for unlawful State action.

Samar Paul v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

7 September 2026 — Maintenance

Facts: Samar Paul challenged the continuation of a maintenance case filed by his divorced wife under Section 125 CrPC. He argued that after their divorce, his former wife could no longer claim maintenance. He also challenged maintenance being granted to their daughter, who had already become a major and was pursuing her studies.

Issue: Whether a divorced wife can continue to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and whether a major daughter can claim maintenance under the same provision.

Decision: The Court held that a divorced woman who has not remarried is still considered a “wife” for Section 125 CrPC and can claim maintenance. However, the Court held that the daughter, having become a major and having no physical or mental disability, could not claim maintenance under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC. The Court relied on Abhilasha v. Parkash.

Saibal Adhikari & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

10 September 2026 — Section 498A

Facts: A woman filed a matrimonial complaint against her husband and several of his relatives, alleging cruelty and other offences. Some relatives were living separately and were accused mainly on the basis of general allegations and alleged telephone conversations. The investigation did not establish any specific role played by them.

Issue: Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 406, 341, 323 and 34 IPC can continue against relatives when there are only vague and general allegations against them.

Decision: The High Court quashed the proceedings against the concerned relatives. It found that there were no specific dates, incidents or clear roles attributed to them. The Court observed that making relatives face a criminal trial on vague allegations, without material showing their involvement, could amount to abuse of the legal process.

Hiran Das v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

17 September 2026 — Teacher’s Salary

Facts: Hiran Das, a teacher, claimed that he should receive the higher pay scale because he had obtained a Master’s degree in Physical Education. His request for the higher scale had earlier been rejected by the authorities.

Issue: Whether the petitioner was entitled to have his salary recalculated by considering his higher educational qualification.

Decision: The Calcutta High Court relied on earlier Division Bench decisions dealing with the same issue and found no reason to take a different view. It therefore set aside the earlier rejection order and directed the District Inspector of Schools to recalculate the petitioner’s salary by giving him the higher scale from 13 September 2005, the date on which his result was published. The Court also directed that the arrears should be paid within the prescribed period.

Tigerhill Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Pankaj Ladia

Date: 16 September 2026

Facts: The dispute arose from a property transaction in which a cheque had been issued in connection with the proposed purchase of land. The transaction did not ultimately materialise, and the cheque was subsequently dishonoured. Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were initiated. The accused questioned whether the dishonoured cheque represented a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Issue: Whether Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can apply when a cheque was issued in connection with a transaction that was subsequently cancelled or did not materialise.

Decision: The Court examined whether a legally enforceable liability existed when the cheque was presented. It considered the Supreme Court’s principles concerning cheques issued in relation to transactions that were later cancelled. The decision emphasised that the basic requirement of Section 138 is the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Somnath Giri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Date: 17 September 2026

Facts: The petitioners were contractual Dock Pilots working at Haldia Dock Complex. They had continued in service for several years through repeated extensions of their contractual appointments. They argued that their long service, qualifications and experience entitled them to regular appointment against available posts.

Issue: Whether long and continuous contractual employment creates a right to regularisation or permanent appointment in government service.

Decision: The Court examined the petitioners’ claim in light of the applicable recruitment rules and the distinction between contractual and regular employment. It considered the fact that the petitioners had served for a considerable period but also recognised that long contractual service by itself does not automatically create a right to permanent appointment. Regularisation must remain consistent with the applicable recruitment framework and constitutional requirements governing public employment. The case is useful for understanding the limits of claiming regularisation merely because an employee has served for many years.

Tapas Paul v. Smt. Mamata Khutia

Date: 18 September 2026

Facts: The case arose from an eviction dispute between a landlord and tenant under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The tenant had sought to deposit rent, but questions arose regarding delay in making the deposits. The trial court rejected the tenant’s applications and struck out his defence under Section 7(3) of the Act. The tenant challenged this order before the High Court.

Issue: Whether the tenant’s defence could be struck out for non-compliance with the rent-deposit requirements when the tenant claimed that the delay had been condoned and that rent had otherwise been deposited.

Decision: The High Court examined the statutory requirements governing payment and deposit of rent and the circumstances in which a tenant’s defence may be struck out. The Court considered the previous orders and the conduct of the parties before deciding whether the trial court had correctly applied Section 7. The case is relevant to the rights and procedural protections of tenants in eviction proceedings under West Bengal tenancy law.

Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications

Editorial Note: This article has been reviewed by the LegalRath Editorial Team to ensure legal accuracy, editorial quality, and clarity before publication.