Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 18th March-24th March 2024

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a judgment which fails to consider a precedent which was available at the time of pronouncing the judgment but was not shown to the Court, is not reviewable on the ground of being per incuriam.

A single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held:

A judgment containing an erroneous point of law is not reviewable; it is an appealable judgment. A judgment pronounced on a question of law which is subsequently reversed or modified by a superior Court is also not a reviewable judgment. A judgment which fails to consider a decision which was available at the time of pronouncing the judgment, but was not shown to the Court, by the same logic, is not reviewable on the ground of being per incuriam. Such a judgment would be open to challenge before a superior Court. Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 preserves the finality of a decision even where the question of law is subsequently unsettled by a superior Court.

Settlement Process By Chairman And Managing Director Doesn't Involve Adjudication, Not Final And Binding: Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 70

Case Title: M/s. Mainak Engineering Private Limited vs Bihar Rural Livelihoods Promotion Society.

The Calcutta High Court division bench of Justice I.P. Mukerji and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury held that the settlement process undertaken by the Chairman and Managing Director of the company doesn't involve adjudication. It held that the termination of a settlement attempt does not always result in a “final and binding” decision.

Arbitration Act | 'Court' Under Section 29A Takes Character Of Appointing Authority Under Section 11: Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 71

Case Title: Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that the word “Court” in Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator takes the character of the appointing authority under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, it held that can only be the Court which has the power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11.

For Unconditional Stay Of Arbitral Award, Prima Facie Case Of Fraud With Substantial Impact On Outcome On Arbitration Proceedings: Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 72

Case Title: SRMB Srijan Limited vs Great Eastern Energy Corporation Limited.

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that for an unconditional stay of an arbitral award on pretext of fraud, there should prima facie case of fraud which should be evident on the face of the record without the necessity of a detailed or through examination. The bench held that fraud must be evident and reprehensible, with a substantial impact on the outcome of the arbitration proceedings.

MSCS Act | Disputes Between Society And Its Members Are Subject To Arbitration: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside State & District Consumer Commission Orders

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 73

Case Title: The Secretary, E & NF Railway Junior Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Eastern Railway vs Sri Jyotish Chandra Sarkar & Anr.

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that disputes concerning the management, constitution, or business of the society, between the society and its members or those claiming through them, are subject to arbitration under Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. Therefore, it set aside orders of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for entertaining the complaint.