Disposed¶25

Welcast India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Alka Kejriwal and Ors.

Calcutta HC9 Dec 2025MAT/941/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court, Appellate Side, MAT 941 of 2025 (Assigned) with CAN 1 of 2025, decided 09.12.2025 (Bhattacharyya and Bhattacharya, JJ.). Welcast India Private Ltd. v. Alka Kejriwal: appeal against Single Judge's ad interim direction for inspection by Uluberia Municipality disposed of as infructuous after inspection held; liberty to challenge inspection report before Writ Court; writ petition merits untouched; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal and CAN disposed of as infructuous without interfering with the impugned order; liberty to appellants to challenge the inspection report before the Writ Court in the pending writ petition; no order as to costs. ¶25

Welcast India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Alka Kejriwal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

09.12.2025

¶2

Item no.DL 22 Court No. 16 Asraf, A.R.(Ct.)

¶3

In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side

¶4

Case No. MAT 941 of 2025 (Assigned)

with

CAN 1 of 2025

In the matter of :

WELCAST INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

¶9

…. Appellants VS.

¶10

ALKA KEJRIWAL & ORS.

¶11

….Respondents

¶12

For the Appellants :

¶13

Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta Mr. Anurag Bagaria

¶14

….Advocates

¶15

For the Respondent nos.1 & 2 :

¶16

Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Sr. Advocate Mr. Debdut Mukherjee Mr. Kaushik Banerjee Ms. Rashmita Sen

¶17

….Advocates

¶18

For the Uluberia Municipality :

¶19

Mr. Gobinda Chandra Bandyopadhyay Mr. Sourav Goswami

¶20

….Advocates

¶21

1. The present appeal was preferred against an order by which the learned Single Judge, at an ad interim stage, had directed an inspection to be held by the Uluberia Municipality. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of such inspection having been held in the meantime, the present appeal has been rendered infructuous.

¶22

2. However, learned counsel for the appellants seeks liberty to challenge the contents of the said report and canvass all other points taken in the writ

¶23

Page 2

¶24

petition before the learned Single Judge, before whom the main writ petition is still pending.

¶25

3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, MAT 941 of 2025, along with CAN 1 of 2025, are disposed of as infructuous, without interfering with the impugned order, with liberty to the appellants to challenge the inspection report which has been filed in the meantime, if they so intend, before the Writ Court itself.

¶26

4. If such a challenge is taken out in the pending writ petition, the respondents would be at liberty to controvert the same in due course of law.

¶27

5. It is further clarified that the merits of the writ petition have not been entered into by this Court and it will be open to all parties to raise their respective contentions before the learned Single Judge, before whom the writ petition is still pending.

¶28

6. There will be no order as to costs.

¶29

7. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

¶30

( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. )

¶31

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)

Welcast India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Alka Kejriwal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Welcast India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Alka Kejriwal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biren Chalak Vs Narayan Chandra Ray and Ors.

Dr. Soham Bhattacharjee Vs Indrani Bhattacharjee Nee Banik

Tirupati Business P Ltd. and Anr. Vs Surendra Prasad Choudhury and Ors.

Mritunjay Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. Vs Jai Balaji Industries Ltd.

The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd. Vs Jai Balaji Industries Ltd.