Can Non-Compliance with Judicial Orders Be Considered Contempt When a Party Lacks Financial Capacity? — Reaffirmation of Existing Principles by Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court reiterates that inability to comply with a court’s direction due to genuine financial incapacity does not amount to contempt; affirms precedent and preserves the petitioner’s right to seek modification. The decision serves as binding authority within the jurisdiction and provides instructive value on the interplay between contempt and enforceability.   Summary […]

Can Appellate Courts Dismiss Second Appeals for Default When Parties Consistently Remain Unrepresented? — Affirmation of Procedural Discretion as Binding Law

The Calcutta High Court confirms that, where parties repeatedly fail to appear despite ample opportunities, second appeals may be dismissed for default; this decision upholds existing procedural precedent and is binding on subordinate courts in West Bengal.   Summary Category Data Case Name SA/919/1965 of BUDGE BUDGE AMALGAMATED MILLS LIMITED Vs BHIM CHANDRA CNR WBCHCA0002731965 […]

Can Appeals Be Dismissed for Default Due to Non-Appearance Despite Prior Final Opportunity? — Clarification and Reaffirmation of Procedural Discipline by the Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court reiterates that when appellants repeatedly fail to appear, even after the grant of a final opportunity, appeals may be dismissed for default. This judgment upholds settled procedural principles and reinforces the court’s authority to regulate its docket. It serves as binding authority for matters of default and procedural non-compliance.   Summary […]

Does Withdrawal of a Writ Petition With Liberty to Refile Set Any Precedent on the Substantive Legal Issue Raised?

The Calcutta High Court granted withdrawal of a writ petition with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action, but did not adjudicate any question of law. This order does not create binding or persuasive precedent and leaves the substantive legal questions open for future determination.   Summary Category Data Case Name WPA/2139/2025 […]

Does a Court Have the Power to Set Aside an Arbitral Award When Both Parties Breach Contractual Notice-and-Cure Requirements—and the Tribunal Rejects Both Claims?

Calcutta High Court reaffirms that arbitral awards based on reasoned application of contract terms—particularly where both parties breach notice and cure procedures—are not amenable to Section 34 challenge merely because alternative interpretations exist. Upholds established Supreme Court precedent restricting judicial review to grounds enumerated in Section 34, thus providing clear binding authority on deference to […]