Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
66 cases · page 1 of 3
Showing 1–29M/s. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., East Zone, Kolkata v.Union of India & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by IRCTC challenging orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority directing it to pay gratuity to a contract worker who had served through three different contractors from 2002 to 2020. The court held that the principal employer is liable to pay gratuity to contract labour under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, but modified the order to grant IRCTC liberty to recover the gratuity amount from the contractor.
Tirupati Vancom Private Limited & Anr v.The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing and exporting fly ash and fly ash bricks, challenged the rectification order dated 20.05.2022 which upheld the rejection of their refund claim of Rs. 49,60,054/- for accumulated/unutilized Input Tax Credit on exports made under Letter of Undertaking for the period December 2019 to March 2020. The Calcutta High Court found that the Appellate Authority had expanded the scope of the Show Cause Notice by introducing grounds relating to Rule 96A, Rule 96B, and Rule 89(4)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which were never part of the original notice, thereby denying the petitioners an opportunity to rebut those allegations. The Court set aside the orders of the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter after affording a fresh opportunity of hearing.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal And Ors
This appeal challenged the trial court's rejection of a temporary injunction application filed by Alok Niwas Private Limited in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to purchase land for an industrial park. The plaintiff had entered into reciprocal land exchange arrangements with defendant No.1 Debasish Pal but sought injunction after the defendant delayed transferring 151.46 decimals of land. The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order and granting the injunction, finding that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case based on the conduct of the parties and the deeds of conveyance already executed.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal And Ors
This appeal arose from the rejection of a temporary injunction application by the trial court in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to transfer land for an industrial park project. The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial court had erred in rejecting the injunction, and granted relief restraining the respondents from altering the suit property, obstructing common passage access, or creating third-party interests.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal And Ors.
The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal filed by Alok Niwas Private Limited against the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Howrah, which had rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to transfer land for an industrial park project. The Division Bench held that the trial court erred in finding no prima facie case, as the oral agreement was evident from the conduct of the parties and the deeds of conveyance executed between them. The court set aside the trial court's order and granted injunctive relief restraining the defendants from altering the suit property, obstructing the common passage, or creating third-party interests.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal and Ors.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an appeal filed by Alok Niwas Private Limited against the rejection of its temporary injunction application by the trial court in a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff had entered into an oral agreement with the respondent for mutual conveyance of land to set up an industrial park, and sought to restrain the respondent from altering the suit property and obstructing ingress and egress. The Division Bench set aside the trial court's order and granted the injunction, restraining the respondents from changing the nature of the suit property, making constructions, alienating the property, or obstructing the common passage.
M/s. Cart Infralog Ltd. & Anr. v.The Additional Commissioner, HQ Anti-Evasion Unit, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate & Ors.
M/s. Cart Infralog Ltd. & Anr. filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 11.06.2025 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the consequential Order in Original dated 09.12.2025, alleging ineligible and irregular Input Tax Credit (ITC) of approximately Rs. 2.37 crores with total interest and penalty aggregating to Rs. 6.3 crores. The petitioners contended that the defaulting supplier (M/s. Aster Trading Company) who failed to file GSTR-3B should be held liable, not the purchasing dealer, relying on the Division Bench decision in Suncraft Energy Pvt. Ltd. (affirmed by the Supreme Court on 14.12.2023). The Court quashed the Order in Original and the recovery notice, directed reconsideration of the matter in light of the cited precedents, and required the petitioners to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- as a condition for remand.
Kamal Mahanty v.Jhantu Mohapatra
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a revisional application filed by Kamal Mahanty seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arising from Complaint Case No. C-323 of 2016 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai, Purba Medinipur. The court held that a prima facie case was made out based on the presentation of the cheque, its return with the endorsement 'Payment stopped by Drawer,' and the failure to comply with the statutory demand notice. The petitioner's contentions regarding limitation, contractual defenses, and the alleged absence of a money-lending license were rejected as triable issues of fact.
Ratna Bose Represented by Her Husband and Power of Attorney Holder, Priya Sankar Bose v.The Sole Arbitrator, Dilip Kumar Das & Anr.
This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenged an order dismissing the appellant's Section 34 petition against an arbitral award arising from disputes over National Stock Exchange transactions. The appellant contended that the arbitral tribunal's constitution was vitiated and that she was denied representation by an advocate. The Calcutta High Court found no evidence of bias, noted that the governing rules did not permit advocate representation, and found no patent illegality in the award, dismissing the appeal.
Dr. Dulal Kumar De v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his patent application for 'Herbal Anti-Venom against Catfish Sting' on grounds of abandonment. The core dispute revolved around whether the service of the First Examination Report (FER) via email, rather than registered post, invalidated the time limits under the Patents Act, 1970.
M/s Prominal Electric Vehicle Private Limited v.The State of West Bengal
Petitioners, e-rickshaw manufacturers, challenged the non-issuance of registration certificates due to concerns about patent holder's exclusive rights. The Court reviewed previous orders and directed the Registering Authority to proceed with registrations, provided the vehicles are distinct from those subject to a pending title suit.
M/S Sunhok Wheels Pvt. Ltd. v.The State Of West Bengal
Petitioners, manufacturers of e-rickshaws, challenged the non-issuance of registration certificates due to concerns raised by a private respondent claiming patent rights over the technology. The court reviewed previous orders and directed the Registering Authority to proceed with registrations, provided the vehicles are distinct from those subject to pending title suits.
Upl Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Upl Limited challenged an order rejecting its patent application, arguing that the rejection was based on lack of novelty/inventive step and violated principles of natural justice because expert evidence was ignored. The petitioner contended that the combination offered unexpected advantages in crop yield by controlling fungal diseases. The High Court found a serious infirmity in the impugned order due to procedural lapses and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Kanishk Sinha v.State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha, the patent holder of e-rickshaws/e-vehicles, appealed a judgment that had previously directed registration authorities to register these vehicles. The court held that questions regarding exclusive rights, compulsory licensing, and compensation are matters for pending civil suits or statutory fora under the Patents Act, not writ jurisdiction.
Kanishk Sinha v.State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha appealed against an order that disposed of a writ petition filed by e-rickshaw manufacturers seeking registration authority direction. The original dispute involved the patent holder (appellant) seeking damages and injunctions against infringers for manufacturing without a license. The court held that questions regarding exclusive rights, compulsory licensing, and compensation are matters for pending civil suits or statutory fora under the Patents Act, not writ jurisdiction.
Kylin Sanitary Technology (XIAMEN) Company Limited v.Union of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting its patent application (202034009705) as abandoned. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to COVID-19 and negligence of the Indian Patent Agent, not intentional inaction. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the mandatory timelines under the Patents Act must be complied with, and the petitioner demonstrated an indolent attitude.
M/S. Cart Infralog Ltd. & Anr v.The Additional Commissioner
Court decision.
The Regents of the University of California & Others v.Union of India & Others
The petitioner challenged the actions of the Opposition Board regarding an interlocutory application related to their granted patent. The dispute centered on procedural infirmities in the post-grant opposition proceedings, specifically concerning the admissibility of evidence filed by the respondent. The court held that since the matter was still pending before the Hearing Officer and no final decision had been reached, the writ petition was premature.
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.Union Of India Ors
The appellants challenged the validity of Section 53 of the Patent Act, 1970, arguing that the delay in granting their patent (from application date to grant date) and subsequent demand for renewal fees violated constitutional rights. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 53 is intra vires the Constitution and that the USA model of Patent Term Adjustment is not conducive to India.
Upl Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Upl Limited challenged a communication from respondent authorities that cancelled a scheduled hearing for its patent application, citing redundancy in cited prior art. The petitioner argued this cancellation was unjustifiable without following procedural mandates. The court found serious infractions of procedure and directed the matter to be reassigned and heard afresh.
Udaykumar Chabidas Patel v.Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
Udaykumar Chabidas Patel v.Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
Udaykumar Chabidas Patel v.Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India and Others
The writ petition challenged an administrative order denying the petitioner access to EV registration linkage data. The petitioner claimed this data was necessary to track sales and claim royalties under his patent related to electric car mechanisms. The court disposed of the petition, stating it had not expressed an opinion on the merits of the petitioner's rights and directing parties to pursue remedies in the appropriate forum.
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.Union of India
The appellants filed an appeal challenging a single bench order that had dismissed their writ petition. The original petition questioned the validity (vires) of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court admitted the appeal but dismissed the prayer for stay, stating that the statute remains valid until struck down.
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing that since full patent rights only commence upon grant, counting the twenty-year term from the date of application is contradictory. The respondents argued that both sections operate at different stages and are compliant with international obligations like TRIPS Agreement. The Court ultimately held that Section 53 is intra vires the Constitution.
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India And Another
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity (vires) of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner argues that this section is contrary to Section 11A(7) because it restricts patent subsistence based on the date of application rather than the date of publication. The court addressed preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and res judicata before adjourning the matter for arguments on merits.
Sri Amaresh Banerjee v.The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The petitioner, a manufacturer of coaltar under the trade name 'Anchor', challenged the rejection of his application for reinvestigation before the Calcutta High Court. The dispute involved alleged infringement of the petitioner's registered trademark and copyright by the opposite party no. 1. The court ultimately dismissed the revision petition, finding that the investigation was conducted fairly and that the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process since a civil suit on the same matter was already pending.
Shah Mayankkumar Bharatkumar v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed a revisional application before the Calcutta High Court, aggrieved by the excessive delay in disposing of an opposition filed by opposite party no. 2 against their Registered Design (No. 304927). The court disposed of the application by directing the Controller of Patents and Designs to conclude the pending opposition proceedings within two months.
Pan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. v.Ramnagar Seeds Farm Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Pan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. appealed against a lower court's decision regarding an interim injunction concerning its registered plant variety PAN 804. The appeal focused on procedural fairness, arguing that the trial court violated principles of natural justice by relying solely on voluminous documents produced by the respondents without giving the appellant a chance to respond. The High Court allowed the appeal and granted an injunction.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.