BIDYUT KUMAR SAHA MUKTESWAR MAITY vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. — FMA/1704/2025
Case under West Bengal Co-operative Act ,2006 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 19th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0466462025
Next Hearing
28th October 2025
Filing Number
MAT/1695/2025
Filing Date
22-09-2025
Registration No
FMA/1704/2025
Registration Date
22-09-2025
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR , HON'BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR , HON'BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )
Sub-Category
Miscellaneous ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
FIRST MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL (FMA) SECTION
Decision Date
19th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BIDYUT KUMAR SAHA MUKTESWAR MAITY
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR , HON'BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
FOR ADMISSION
GROUP - V
GROUP - V
GROUP - V
GROUP - V
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-10-2025 | FOR ADMISSION |
| 04-05-2026 | GROUP - V |
| 02-03-2026 | GROUP - V |
| 27-02-2026 | GROUP - V |
| 26-02-2026 | GROUP - V |
Orders
The High Court at Calcutta dismissed Bidyut Kumar Saha's appeal against a lower court order upholding an arbitral award by a cooperative credit society. The appellant had defaulted on a ₹15 lakh loan secured by pledged crops and argued the award should be reduced by the value of damaged perishable goods, but the court rejected this claim as it was never raised before the awarding authority, no damage quantification was provided, and the appellant never attempted to retrieve the goods or repay the loan. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court at Calcutta dismissed Bidyut Kumar Saha's appeal against a lower court order upholding an arbitral award by a cooperative credit society. The appellant had defaulted on a ₹15 lakh loan secured by pledged crops and argued the award should be reduced by the value of damaged perishable goods, but the court rejected this claim as it was never raised before the awarding authority, no damage quantification was provided, and the appellant never attempted to retrieve the goods or repay the loan. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts