Calcutta High Court
MAT/2110/2025 of SOBHA SINGH Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS on 17 June 2026
Court No.12 (gc) MAT 2110 of 2025 CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025 Sobha Singh Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. A . Khan, Mr. P. Roy …for the Appellant. Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, A.G.P., Ms. Tanusree Ghosh …for the State. Mr. Mrityunjoy Goswami, Mr. Parikshit Goswami
17.06.2026
SL No.101
Court No.12
(gc)
MAT 2110 of 2025
CAN 1 of 2025
CAN 2 of 2025
Sobha Singh
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. A. Khan,
Mr. P. Roy
…for the Appellant.
Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, A.G.P.,
Ms. Tanusree Ghosh
…for the State.
Mr. Mrityunjoy Goswami,
Mr. Parikshit Goswami
…for the Respondent Nos.3 to 7.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. We are not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. First of all, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by His Lordship as the entire order was passed on factual assessment of the situation. However, we find that His Lordship had allowed the writ petitioner/appellant to pray for modification of the original order, while disposing of a contempt application.
2. According to the appellant, the delay of 400 days has occurred, in view of the pendency of the contempt application.
3. The appeal was filed on the understanding that His Lordship has become functus officio. This argument of the appellant is misconceived. His
2 Lordship granted leave to the appellant for modification of His own order.
4. Thus, we are not in a position to modify His Lordship’s order by entertaining the appeal.
5. As we are of the view that the remedy lies before the Court which had passed the original order, no useful purpose will be served in condoning the delay of 400 days.
6. Accordingly, the application being CAN 1 of 2025 is dismissed.
7. Hence, there is no appeal in the eye of law.
8. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
9. Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)