TUHIN MANNA RAJDEEP SINHA vs BANDANA PAKRIYAL, COMMISSIONER, HOWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION — CPAN/2012/2025
Case under Contempt of Courts Act Section NA. Next hearing: 13th August 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0576852025
Filing Number
CPAN/2050/2025
Filing Date
10-Dec-2025
Registration No
CPAN/2012/2025
Registration Date
11-Dec-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Justice Amrita Sinha
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Amrita Sinha
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )
Sub-Category
Civil Contempt ( 8 )
Judicial Branch
FIRST MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL (FMA) SECTION
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.TUHIN MANNA RAJDEEP SINHA
Respondent(s)
-
1.BANDANA PAKRIYAL, COMMISSIONER, HOWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Case History
-
13-Aug-2026
Next hearingPending
-
13-Aug-2026
Application 1
Hon'ble Justice Amrita Sinha
-
18-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Justice Amrita SinhaView PDF
Case Summary: The High Court at Calcutta heard a contempt petition (CPAN 2012/2025) where Tuhin Manna alleged violation of a court direction dated January 2, 2024, by respondent Bandana Pakriyal (Commissioner, Howrah Municipal Corporation). The court directed the petitioner to serve the contempt application on the alleged contemnor with the matter scheduled for August 13, 2026, and clarified that pending contempt proceedings will not excuse non-compliance with the original court direction. The court also permitted impleading the new incumbent as respondent and serving them accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. CPAN/2012/2025
Case Summary: The High Court at Calcutta heard a contempt petition (CPAN 2012/2025) where Tuhin Manna alleged violation of a court direction dated January 2, 2024, by respondent Bandana Pakriyal (Commissioner, Howrah Municipal Corporation). The court directed the petitioner to serve the contempt application on the alleged contemnor with the matter scheduled for August 13, 2026, and clarified that pending contempt proceedings will not excuse non-compliance with the original court direction. The court also permitted impleading the new incumbent as respondent and serving them accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts