Archive · 20 Aug 2026
Calcutta High Court Extends Stay on Amtala Office Demolition
A court in Calcutta has temporarily stopped officials from demolishing a political office in Amtala.
The office belongs to a company linked to Abhishek Banerjee.
Someone complained that the building was illegal.
Officials demolished part of it before the court issued a stay.
Banerjee’s lawyer says the complaint referred to different plots from the one where the office stands.
He also says the owner was not given proper notice or a chance to respond.
The court will hear the case again on September 8, and the protection lasts until September 18.
In a separate matter, the court questioned a bank about freezing Banerjee’s account and credit cards.
The judge also asked why Banerjee had to appear in person for an identity check that could be done online.
The Calcutta High Court extended its interim stay on demolishing Abhishek Banerjee’s party office in Amtala until September 18.
The case will be heard again on September 8 after a complaint alleged the office was illegally constructed.
A portion of the office was demolished on July 18, with further work beginning the next day.
Abhishek Banerjee’s lawyer said the complaint concerned plots 509 and 512, while the office stands on plot 507.
The court also questioned a private bank over freezing Banerjee’s account and blocking two credit cards without clear prior notice.
- Who
- The Calcutta High Court, Abhishek Banerjee’s company Leaps and Bounds, the state government, and complainant Sushanta Mondal are involved.
- What
- The court extended a stay preventing demolition of Banerjee’s Amtala office and questioned a bank’s handling of his account and credit cards.
- When
- The stay was extended on Thursday until September 18; the demolition case will next be heard on September 8.
- Where
- The office is in Amtala, South 24 Parganas; the hearing took place before the Calcutta High Court.
- Why
- The stay followed a complaint alleging illegal construction and arguments that demolition occurred without proper notice or an opportunity to respond.
Banerjee’s Legal Position
State Authorities’ Position
Whether the structure was illegally built
Banerjee’s Legal Position
Banerjee’s lawyer argued that the complaint referred to plots 509 and 512, not plot 507, where the office stands.
State Authorities’ Position
The administration acted on a complaint alleging that the office had been constructed illegally.
Notice and opportunity to respond
Banerjee’s Legal Position
The lawyer said no notice was served, the complaint documents were not provided, and the owner was not given an opportunity to present a case or remove any illegal construction.
State Authorities’ Position
The state government sought additional time to present its case and requested adequate time for the hearing.
Compensation for demolition
Banerjee’s Legal Position
Banerjee’s lawyer sought appropriate compensation for the demolition already carried out.
State Authorities’ Position
The article does not state the state government’s position on compensation.
- Stay period
- Demolition is restrained until September 18.
- Next hearing
- The case will be heard again on September 8.
- Complaint date
- Sushanta Mondal lodged the complaint on May 17.
- Demolition timeline
- Part of the office was demolished on July 18, with further work beginning on July 19.
- Disputed plots
- Banerjee’s lawyer said the complaint concerned plots 509 and 512, while the office stands on plot 507.
- Company represented
- Senior advocate Kishore Dutta appeared for Leaps and Bounds.
- Separate banking matter
- The court questioned a private bank over freezing Banerjee’s account and blocking two credit cards.