HCMONTHLY CASE LAW ARCHIVE
Read 89 LawLens analyses of Calcutta High Court judgments published in April 2026, covering key rulings, legal principles and case law.
← BACK TO CALCUTTA COURT REPORTPERMANENT MONTHLY EDITIONS
The petitioner, a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) with a branch office in Kolkata, provided a business loan of Rs. 17,10,000 to the respondents for business expansion.
3 MIN READ→
The petitioner, a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), entered into a Business Loan Agreement with the respondents in August 2024 for Rs. 1,64,40,000/-
3 MIN READ→
The Petitioner, a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), entered into a Business Loan Agreement with the Respondents in March 2023 for Rs. 93,15,000/-
3 MIN READ→
The petitioner, a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), provided a loan of ₹2,33,80,237 to the respondents for business expansion under a Business Loan Agreement dated January 31, 2023.
3 MIN READ→
The Petitioner, a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) with a branch office in Kolkata, provided a business loan of Rs. 41,35,000 to the Respondents for business expansion
3 MIN READ→
The petitioner, a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) with its branch office in Kolkata, provided a business loan of ₹51,29,000 to the respondents for business expansion
3 MIN READ→
The Petitioner entered into a Concession Agreement (dated September 14, 2018) to operate food outlets at Bhubaneswar Airport.
2 MIN READ→
The appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of money lent and advanced to the respondent (defendant).
2 MIN READ→
The appellant (plaintiff) lent and advanced money to the respondent (defendant).
2 MIN READ→
The appellant (plaintiff) initiated a suit for the recovery of money lent and advanced to the respondent (defendant)
2 MIN READ→
The appellant, an individual assessee, was subjected to a reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 regarding the purchase price of an immovable property.
2 MIN READ→
The petitioner, a proprietor of a Customs Broker firm (M/s Bose Enterprise), processed five shipping bills for M/s KSH International for the export of energy drinks to the UAE
3 MIN READ→
The Petitioners (a Co-operative society and its director) entered into a registered Development Agreement with Respondent No. 1 (landowner) on 06.01.2022 for a construction project
2 MIN READ→
The Petitioner, a joint venture, was awarded a contract by the Respondent on 05.09.2013 for the construction of railway bridges
2 MIN READ→
The petitioner, Smt. Mithu Banik, sought a direction for the removal of a permanent shop structure erected by Respondent No. 6 on the public footpath in front of her shop at 37/8, Mahatma Gandhi Road.
3 MIN READ→
The petitioner, a landlord, inducted K.G. Industries Pvt. Ltd. as a tenant, who deposited monthly rent with the Rent Controller (Respondent No. 2) from March 2014 to January 2025 at ₹8,500/month
2 MIN READ→
The petitioner, a landlord, inducted K.G. Industries Pvt. Ltd. as a monthly tenant for premises in Burrabazar, Kolkata. From March 2014 to January 2025, the tenant deposited monthly rent (totaling Rs. 11,13,500) with...
3 MIN READ→
The Plaintiffs (real estate developers) entered into six agreements for sale and one development agreement with the Defendants (mother and daughter) on August 5, 1987, regarding premises at 215 and 217 Netaji Subhas C...
3 MIN READ→
The appellant (plaintiff), appointed as a receiver for an estate, filed a suit in 2008 for eviction, mesne profits, property tax, and perpetual injunction against the respondents regarding tenanted premises.
2 MIN READ→
The appellant was granted registration for a label mark "Ganraj Chhappan Bhog" on August 19, 2020
2 MIN READ→
The Appellant, a manufacturing unit, defaulted on Central Excise duty payments for March 2006. On June 5, 2006, the Revenue issued a 'forfeiture order' under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, prohibiting t...
3 MIN READ→
The Award Holder filed an execution petition under Section 36(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to enforce an arbitral award dated 19.09.2023.
2 MIN READ→
The Appellant filed a suit (CS/256/2009) seeking a perpetual injunction and damages regarding car parking spaces.
2 MIN READ→
The National Airports Authority of India appointed the appellant (NBCC) as a Project Management Consultant for the Bhubaneswar Airport. NBCC awarded a contract to the respondent (J.G. Engineers) on March 13, 1993, for...
3 MIN READ→
The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction and damages regarding car parking spaces.
2 MIN READ→
The testator, Akhilesh Kumar Sinha, allegedly executed a Will on December 24, 1987, appointing Sant Agarwal as the executor.
2 MIN READ→
The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit for eviction against the appellant (defendant) based on three agreements dated January 27, 2006, concerning tenancy, maintenance, and service
2 MIN READ→
The appellant, a company manufacturing graphite electrodes and operating captive power units, challenged an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the Assessment Year 2001-02
3 MIN READ→
The appellant/assessee, a manufacturer of graphite electrodes and calcined petroleum coke, operated three captive power units
3 MIN READ→
The appellant, an insurance company, challenged a Trial Court judgment dated March 13, 2024, which had decreed the respondent's (plaintiff) claim for damages following a vehicular accident
2 MIN READ→
The petitioner’s daughter, the proforma respondent, held an add-on credit card issued by Axis Bank (Respondent No. 2).
3 MIN READ→
Petitioner No. 1 is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) holding a Certificate of Registration (CoR) since 1998
3 MIN READ→
The Appellants were awarded an e-tender on January 17, 2024, for providing webcasting solutions for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections in West Bengal
3 MIN READ→
The parties entered into a 25-year Gas Sale and Purchase Agreement (GSPA) in 2011 for the supply of coal bed methane (CBM gas)
3 MIN READ→
The Petitioners, owners of a commercial building at 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 232B and the second proviso to Section 180(2) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KM...
3 MIN READ→
The respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit on January 7, 2019, for the eviction of the appellant (defendant) from a property used as office space
3 MIN READ→
On March 28, 2019, Customs Preventive officers searched the Respondent’s premises and seized three foreign-marked gold bars weighing 2755.200 grams, valued at approximately Rs. 89,87,462
2 MIN READ→
The appellant (plaintiff) filed a civil suit (CS/234/2019) seeking a money decree of Rs. 29,63,946/- against the respondent bank
2 MIN READ→
The Appellants (Plaintiffs) filed a commercial suit for trademark infringement and passing off against the Respondents (Defendants) regarding the use of the mark "Really," which was allegedly deceptively similar to th...
3 MIN READ→
The plaintiff/decree-holder purchased premises at No. 5, Kiran Shankar Roy Road, Kolkata, in 1994
3 MIN READ→
The Appellant (plaintiff) lent Rs. 50,00,000 to the Respondent (defendant) on March 30, 2011, at an agreed interest rate of 9% per annum
3 MIN READ→
A consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement" regarding property allotment
3 MIN READ→
On May 22, 1997, a Division Bench passed a consent decree based on the "Mittal Settlement" for the partition of various properties
3 MIN READ→
A consent decree was passed by the Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement," which partitioned properties among the parties
3 MIN READ→
The plaintiff (appellant) filed a suit in 2016 (CS/85/2016) seeking a declaration of possessory rights, recovery of khas possession, and mesne profits
2 MIN READ→
A consent decree was passed by the Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement," which allotted various properties among the parties
3 MIN READ→
The plaintiff, a jewellery company, filed a commercial suit for the recovery of Rs. 6,51,28,139.99 for goods allegedly sold and delivered to the defendants
2 MIN READ→
The respondent issued three purchase orders (CC-10/2000, CC-19/2001, and CC-19/2002) to the appellant for wooden cable drums.
2 MIN READ→
The Appellant entered into a dealership agreement with the Respondent on March 8, 2004, to operate a retail petrol pump
3 MIN READ→
On May 22, 1997, a Division Bench passed a consent decree in a suit for declaration and cancellation of the "Mittal Settlement"
3 MIN READ→
A consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on a "Mittal Settlement" involving the partition of properties
3 MIN READ→
The parties entered into a consent decree on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement," which partitioned various properties
3 MIN READ→
The petitioner filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the "Act") for the appointment of an arbitrator.
2 MIN READ→
The litigation stems from a consent decree passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on a "Mittal Settlement" involving property partition
3 MIN READ→
The underlying suit for declaration and cancellation of the "Mittal Settlement" resulted in a consent decree passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997.
3 MIN READ→
The Appellant (Amara Raja) and Respondent (Exide) are the primary competitors in the Indian automotive battery market
3 MIN READ→
A consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement" involving the partition of properties
3 MIN READ→
In a suit for declaration and cancellation of a "Mittal Settlement," a consent decree was passed by the Division Bench on May 22, 1997.
3 MIN READ→
On May 22, 1997, a Division Bench passed a consent decree in a suit for declaration and cancellation based on a "Mittal Settlement".
3 MIN READ→
The litigation originates from a consent decree passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement," which partitioned various properties among the parties
3 MIN READ→
The litigation stems from a consent decree passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on a "Mittal Settlement" concerning property partition
3 MIN READ→
A consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement" for the partition of properties
3 MIN READ→
A consent decree was passed on May 22, 1997, based on a partition arrangement known as the "Mittal Settlement"
3 MIN READ→
A consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on a "Mittal Settlement" for the partition and allotment of properties
3 MIN READ→
In a suit for declaration and cancellation of a "Mittal Settlement," a consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997
3 MIN READ→
A consent decree was passed on May 22, 1997, by a Division Bench based on the "Mittal Settlement," which partitioned properties among the parties
3 MIN READ→
In a suit for declaration and cancellation of the "Mittal Settlement," a Division Bench passed a consent decree on May 22, 1997
2 MIN READ→
The suit originated for the declaration and cancellation of the "Mittal Settlement," resulting in a consent decree passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997.
3 MIN READ→
The suit, involving a declaration and cancellation of the "Mittal Settlement," resulted in a consent decree passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997
3 MIN READ→
A consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on a "Mittal Settlement" for the partition of properties.
3 MIN READ→
A consent decree was passed on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement," which partitioned properties among the parties
3 MIN READ→
A consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement" for the partition of properties
3 MIN READ→
The Respondent, as landowner, entered into a Development Agreement with the Appellant as developer on 07.04.2014 for a project in Kolkata
3 MIN READ→
The underlying suit for declaration and cancellation of the "Mittal Settlement" was resolved by a consent decree passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997.
3 MIN READ→
This matter pertains to the drawing up and completion of a consent decree passed on May 22, 1997, by a Division Bench
3 MIN READ→
In a suit for declaration and cancellation of the "Mittal Settlement," a consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997
3 MIN READ→
Between 2010 and 2012, the appellant issued four work orders to the respondent, for which certain bills remained unpaid
2 MIN READ→
On May 22, 1997, a Division Bench passed a consent decree in a suit for declaration and cancellation of the "Mittal Settlement"
3 MIN READ→
The Respondent No. 1 (R1) advanced a loan of ₹15 lakhs to the Appellants, of which ₹2 lakhs was repaid, leaving a balance of ₹13 lakhs plus interest
3 MIN READ→
A consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement," which allotted various properties among the parties
3 MIN READ→
The parties entered into a consent decree on May 22, 1997, based on a "Mittal Settlement" for the partition of properties
3 MIN READ→
A consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement," which partitioned various properties
3 MIN READ→
On May 22, 1997, a Division Bench passed a consent decree in a suit for declaration and cancellation of the "Mittal Settlement"
3 MIN READ→
The matter pertains to a consent decree passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement" for the partition and allotment of properties.
3 MIN READ→
The litigation originates from a 1997 consent decree passed by a Division Bench based on the "Mittal Settlement," which allocated various properties among the parties
3 MIN READ→
The litigation stems from a consent decree passed on May 22, 1997, by a Division Bench based on the "Mittal Settlement," which partitioned properties among the parties
3 MIN READ→
On May 22, 1997, a Division Bench passed a consent decree based on the "Mittal Settlement" for the partition of properties
3 MIN READ→
A consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement," involving the allotment of properties
3 MIN READ→
A consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on a "Mittal Settlement" involving the allotment of immovable properties
3 MIN READ→