HCMONTHLY CASE LAW ARCHIVE

Calcutta High Court Judgments in July 2026: Case Law Digest

Read 15 LawLens analyses of Calcutta High Court judgments published in July 2026, covering key rulings, legal principles and case law.

← BACK TO CALCUTTA COURT REPORT

PERMANENT MONTHLY EDITIONS

Browse by month

AUTOMATICALLY UPDATED

July 2026 Judgments

15 ARTICLES · NEWEST FIRST
Non-consideration of a prior binding Supreme Court precedent constitutes an error apparent on the record warranting review. The High Court allowed a review petition after realizing its previous judgment—which had declared a trial court decree a nullity for jurisdictional errors—conflicted with a Supreme Court ruling delivered just days earlier. The Court held that even if a binding precedent is not brought to its attention by counsel, its omission provides sufficient grounds for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the Court recalled its previous order and transferred the appeal to the Commercial Division for a hearing on the merits. Would you like a summary of the facts and arguments presented by the parties in this matter?. B.N.NOBBIS AND CO AND ORS vs KAMALES MALLIK AND ORS. Calcutta High Court. LawLens

Calcutta High Court·

Civil Procedure and EvidenceCommercial and Corporate Law

Non-consideration of a prior binding Supreme Court precedent constitutes an error apparent on the record warranting review. The High Court allowed a review petition after realizing its previous judgment—which had declared a trial court decree a nullity for jurisdictional errors—conflicted with a Supreme Court ruling delivered just days earlier. The Court held that even if a binding precedent is not brought to its attention by counsel, its omission provides sufficient grounds for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the Court recalled its previous order and transferred the appeal to the Commercial Division for a hearing on the merits. Would you like a summary of the facts and arguments presented by the parties in this matter?

The respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profit regarding property used for commercial purposes

3 MIN READ