ARUN DHRUV TRIPATHI DEBABEENA MUKHERJEE vs RISHI BARUI ALIAS KRISHNAPPA MURTY AND ANR. — CS/37/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Act ,1908 Section N. Disposed: Contested--DEREGISTERED on 15th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: WBCHCO0018502026

Filing Number

CS/36/2026

Filing Date

21-May-2026

Registration No

CS/37/2026

Registration Date

21-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee

Bench Type

Single Bench

Judicial Branch

WRIT AND EXECUTION DEPT(INCL. CHAMBER CLERK)

Decision Date

15-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DEREGISTERED

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Act ,1908 Section N

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ARUN DHRUV TRIPATHI DEBABEENA MUKHERJEE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RISHI BARUI ALIAS KRISHNAPPA MURTY AND ANR.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Arindam MukherjeeView PDF

    The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the defamation suit filed by Arun Dhruv Tripathi against Rishi Barui, finding the court lacked jurisdiction. The court held that merely because the defendant's post targeted Kolkata geographically was insufficient to establish jurisdiction; the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he suffered damages within Calcutta's jurisdiction or worked there for gain. The plaint was returned to the plaintiff with court fees to be filed in the appropriate forum. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Jun-2026

    Presentation Of Plaint

    Hon'ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee

  4. 10-Jun-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 21-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CS/37/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the defamation suit filed by Arun Dhruv Tripathi against Rishi Barui, finding the court lacked jurisdiction. The court held that merely because the defendant's post targeted Kolkata geographically was insufficient to establish jurisdiction; the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he suffered damages within Calcutta's jurisdiction or worked there for gain. The plaint was returned to the plaintiff with court fees to be filed in the appropriate forum. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case