Case: In the matter of: Idul Mia.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 228
RG Kar Rape-Murder: Why Did Calcutta High Court Allow Protestors To March To West Bengal's State Secretariat "Nabanna"Case: Debranjan Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 200The Calcutta High Court on 23rd August, declined to issue prohibitory orders to prevent student organisations from marching towards the State's Secretariat in Nabanna, to...
Case: Debranjan Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 200
The Calcutta High Court on 23rd August, declined to issue prohibitory orders to prevent student organisations from marching towards the State's Secretariat in Nabanna, to protest against the brutal rape and murder of a trainee doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital.
Notably, though it was claimed that the protests, to be carried out by student bodies would be peaceful in nature, there was widespread violence at the protests, leading to injuries to several protestors and police personnel and destruction of public property.
Case: Subal Makhal -Versus- Indian Red Cross Society & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 201
A division bench of Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee while deciding writ petition held that the findings in criminal trial should have bearing on disciplinary proceedings, especially when the charges are identical or closely related.
The employee was appointed as a laborer (Group-D) in the Indian Red Cross Society on May 22, 1979. He was granted temporary status effective from April 1, 1980. On August 3, 1994, a complaint was lodged by respondent against employee, leading to a criminal case being registered under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with criminal breach of trust. The employee was arrested on August 6, 1994, and released on bail on August 23, 1994.
Case: Anjali Lahiri v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 202
The Calcutta High Court has ordered the state police to release a student named Sayan Lahiri, who was alleged to be the leader of the 'Paschim Banga Chhatra Samaj', an organisation which led a call for protests and march towards the State secretariat in Nabanna.
The protests though claimed to be peaceful, resulted in widespread violence, resulting in grave injuries to both protestors and police personnel.
Case Title: Marg Limited Vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited And Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 203
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that if applicant of petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act seeks to benefit from the pandemic relaxation, it cannot simultaneously claim protection under the moratorium of Section 14 of the IBC.
The bench held that to avail the pandemic relaxation, the applicant need to show that the pandemic initially prevented it from filing the application on time.
The Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation directed the extension of period of limitation in all proceedings before Courts/Tribunals in light of COVID pandemic, including the Supreme Court from 15.3.2020 till further orders, and ultimately, by order dated 10.1.2022 held that the period from 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022 shall stand excluded in computing the period of limitation.
Case Title: Kakali Khasnobis Vs Mrs Reeta Paul And Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 204
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not require a prior request for reference to arbitration under Section 21.
The bench held that invalidity of an arbitral proceeding due to the absence of prior notice under Section 21 and a unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is distinct from a situation under Section 11(5), where prior notice is necessary only for the appointment of an arbitrator, not for the initiation of the proceeding itself.
Case Title: Bengal Shelter Housing Development Limited Vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 205
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that granting interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is justified if the Applicant's rights are not protected from third parties, as this could render the arbitral reference irretrievably infructuous.
Case Title: Ranajit Guha Roy and Anr. vs Sankar Kumar Halder
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 206
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that allegations of a party's signature on an arbitration agreement being obtained through fraud or misrepresentation are matters that can be decided by the arbitrator and can't be resolved by the court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench further observed that the arbitral tribunal, similar to a civil court, has the authority to appoint experts when complex issues, such as those involving fraud or misrepresentation, require expert opinion.
Case Title: Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd vs SRMB Srijan Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 207
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the court cannot re-appreciate evidence under the guise of patent illegality, as per the proviso to Section 34 (2-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It remarked that the Court cannot be sitting in appeal over the Tribunal's decision and cannot re-interpret the contract differently from the Tribunal without evidence of patent illegality.
Case Title: Baid Power Services Private Limited vs The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 208
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the time spent in a writ petition on the same cause of action can be excluded from the limitation period for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case: JATIYATABADI AYINJIBI COUNCIL AND ANR. VS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 209
The Calcutta High Court division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking the implementation of various protective measures for advocates such as the Advocates Protection Act, which would provide safeguards for advocates to ensure their ability to perform their professional duties without fear or violence or harassment.
The petitioner also sought protection to establish a dedicated monitoring committee or task force to oversee the implementation of the guidelines. and a direction to immediately install and maintain functional CCTV cameras in all the critical areas and to direct the authorities to establish a dedicated cell or mechanism for the prompt registration and investigation of complaints related to threats, harassment or intimidation of advocates.
Case Title: Tata Communications Limited Vs Rudrapriya Constructions LLP and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 210
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur has held that if a deed of assignment is properly interpreted as being interconnected and related to the original lease deed containing an arbitration clause, then the parties intended for the arbitration clause to be included in the deed of assignment.
The bench held that the interrelationship was not merely superficial but indicative of a deliberate and mutual intent between the parties to incorporate certain terms from the initial lease deed into the new agreement.
Case Title: Tapan Kumar Samaddar Vs Sagar Jagdish Daryani And Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 211
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that when the total monthly payable amount surpasses the threshold for invoking the provisions of the Rent Control Act, the dispute becomes subject to arbitration if the lease agreement contains an arbitration clause.
Further, the bench held that in a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court is not permitted to examine the merits of the disputes between the parties.
Case: Manik Bhattacharya v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 212
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader and former MLA Manik Bhattacharya, accused in the cash-for-jobs recruitment scam case. Notably, two earlier pleas for bail by Bhattacharya had been dismissed by the court.
A single bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh relied on the Supreme Court's order in Manish Sisodia's case and held:
As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again, prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial and in such a case Article 21 applies irrespective of the seriousness of the crime. With regard to the apprehension of the petitioner influencing the witnesses, stringent conditions can be imposed upon him to address the concern. The attendance of the petitioner may also be secured by imposing stringent conditions. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent to his credit and no other criminal case except the present one is pending against him.
Composite Reference Can't Be Made Of Disparate Causes Of Action: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: The Secretary Ganaudyog Bazar Unnayan and Service Co-operative Society Limited vs Iris Health Services Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 213
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that composite reference to an Arbitral Tribunal cannot be made for disparate causes of action in different agreements with different parties as it contravenes the principles of privity, confidentiality, and party autonomy.
Case Title: Gita Refractories Pvt Ltd Vs Tuaman Engineering Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 214
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that Section 18 of the MSME Act does not create any substantive rights or liabilities but simply offers an alternative method for resolving disputes outside of court proceedings.
The bench held that if a party involved in a dispute chooses to pursue arbitration independently under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, the MSME Act does not restrict the claimant from doing so.
Case: Court On Its Own Motion Vs. XXXX(Victim Girl) & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 215
The Calcutta High Court has called upon the POCSO court, Murshidabad to undertake a 'discreet enquiry' into the de-facto complainant and her daughter in a POCSO case for making a false complaint and also recording a false statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., thereby fabricating false evidence within the meaning of Section 192 of the IPC.
A division bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray held:
"As a result of such an act, three innocent persons being the petitioners herein, have spent almost one year behind the bar, and this fact, therefore, should also be taken into account by the Learned Judge. After enquiry, if the Learned Judge, Special POCSO Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad, finds that the defacto-complainant and/or her daughter (if major) are responsible for fabrication of false evidence under Section 192 of Indian Penal Code, 1860...he shall initiate criminal proceedings against them."
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Kolkata v. Bothra Shipping Services Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 216
The Calcutta High Court has held that an enterprise contracting with the assignee of a government-recognised concessionaire for infrastructure development can, based on facts and circumstances of the case, be given the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The provision prescribes deductions in respect of enterprises engaged in infrastructure development. Sub-section (b) of the provision stipulates that the enterprise claiming deduction must have entered into an agreement with the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority or any other statutory body for (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility.
Case Title: Jayashree Electromech Private Limited v. The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 217
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that compliance of the pre-arbitration stages can be waived by consensus. The court observed that forcing the petitioner back to the rigmarole of pre-arbitration formalities would be an unnecessary and futile exercise.
Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation vs. Reliance Infrastructure Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 218
The Calcutta High Court division bench, comprising Justice I. P. Mukerji and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury, has upheld the arbitral award amounting to Rs 780 crore in favour of Reliance Infrastructure Limited, with the exception of relief on pre-award interest and reduction in the rate of interest on bank guarantee. The court observed that the grant of pre-award interest was patently illegal, thereby, setting aside the interest awarded for the period prior to the award date.
90-Day Timeline In Section 18(5) Of MSME Act Is Directory : Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Porel Dass Water & Effluent Control Private Limited vs. The West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 219
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the 90-day timeline for completion of the arbitral proceeding under Section 18(5) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) is directory, not mandatory, and does not terminate or affect the validity of mandate of the MSME Facilitation Council as Arbitrator. It further held that the Court does not have jurisdiction to substitute the Council or its nominee by another Arbitrator under Section 18(3) of the MSME Act, as the Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Facilitation Council and overrides Section 29A(6), Section 14(1) and Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act).
Case: Dasrathbhai Narsangbhai Chaudhary @ Dasrath Chaudhary & Another Versus The State of West Bengal & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 220
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that non-payment of outstanding dues towards Outstanding Salary or Performance Bonus by a company does not amount to a Criminal breach of trust.
A single bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta relied on the Supreme Court case of Binod Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and Another, and held: "From the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that non-payment of outstanding dues towards Outstanding Salary or Performance Bonus by the company does not amount to Criminal breach of trust."
Accordingly, the Court quashed the case against the petitioners filed under Sections 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also set aside the summons issued against them.
S.107 CGST Act | Appellate Authority Cannot Suo Moto Enhance Tax Liability: Calcutta HC
Case title: Hriday Kumar Das Vs State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 221
The Calcutta High Court recently set aside an order of the GST Appellate Authority, suo motu enhancing tax liability on an assessee, without following the procedure under Section 107(11) of the CGST/ WBGST Act.
Section 107 of the Act prescribes procedure for filing and adjudication of appeals by the Appellate Authority. Sub-section 11 thereof stipulates that the Appellate Authority can confirm, modify or annul the order appealed against, provided that an order enhancing any fee/ penalty/ fine shall not be passed unless the appellant is given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Case: The State of West Bengal -vs- Union of India & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 222
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday commented that the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Kalyani, West Bengal, should be brought up to the standard of the AIIMS in Delhi or Rishikesh.
A single bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh made these observations while hearing a plea wherein he had directed the post-mortem of a minor girl who was raped and murdered in Bengal's Jaynagar area, to take place at the AIIMS hospital in Kalyani.
Case Title: AB Enterprises Vs Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 223
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed that award passed by Arbitral Tribunal was tainted with patent illegality and contravened the fundamental policy of Indian law. The award was challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (act). The court set aside the award in which South Eastern Railway (railway) was directed to reimburse the respondent towards service tax and interest.
Case: M/s. Sharma Transport Agency and another vs. Damodar Valley Corporation and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 224
A Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court presided by Justice Shampa Sarkar dismissed a writ petition filed by a bidder challenging its rejection in the technical evaluation round by the tendering authority Damodar Valley Corporation ('DVC').
The subject tender dated 6.03.2024 was for empanelment of transportation agencies for evacuation of 40 LMT ash from ash ponds at DVC's Mejia Thermal Power Station when the petitioner was rejected owing to poor performance at DVC's Raghunathpur Thermal Power Station ('RTPS') wherein the petitioner had failed to perform their commitments and blamed a number of external factors.
Case Title: PCIT vs. Bothra Shipping Services Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 225
The Calcutta High Court recently confirmed the deduction u/s 80IA(4) to an Infrastructural development company, regarding development of a mechanised port handling system by entering into an agreement with a nodal agency recognised by the Andhra Government.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya observed that deduction u/s 80IA(4) is legislated to promote industrial undertaking engaged in the infrastructural development, and therefore, its interpretation should advance the object of its introduction and should not frustrate it.
Case: Joint Platform of Doctors & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 226
The Calcutta High Court has set aside prohibitory orders imposed under sections 163 (1) and (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, by the commissioner of police, Kolkata
These orders were imposed to prevent the assembly of junior doctors, from protesting the brutal rape and murder of a trainee doctor at RG Kar medical college and Hospital, near the area where the State's Durga Puja immersion carnival was slated to be held.
A single bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur passed the order after Chief Justice TS Sivagananam convened a special vacation bench upon a letter sent by the protesting doctors.
Case: Biswa Bhusan Nandi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 227
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that state employees should not be made to suffer due to procedure when they attempt to claim their retiral benefits.
A division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Sen stated:
Fairness and reasonableness are paramount issues for administrative action. As a model employer, the State must conduct itself with high probity and candour and ensure that its employees do not succumb to the procedural rigmarole particularly when the claim pertains to retirement benefits. Biswa had contested his claim since the year 2003 and had remained trapped in a purgatorial legal rigmarole, moving back and forth between the High Court and Tribunal.
Case: In the matter of: Idul Mia.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 228
The Calcutta High Court while dealing with an application for bail in an NDPS matter has allowed the application made by the petitioner, who sought default bail on the grounds that the chargesheet submitted against him was submitted without a forensic report, within the statutory limit of 180 days.
A division bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray held:
In view of the undisputed fact that in the present case the chargesheet, although filed within the period of 180 days, was not accompanied by the FSL report, and that the FSL report was filed as part of a supplementary charge-sheet filed beyond 180 days from the date of arrest of the petitioner and after he applied for statutory bail, we have to hold that upon expiry of 180 days, the petitioner became entitled to statutory bail/default bail, and the learned Trial Court erred in not extending that privilege to the petitioner.
Case Title: SMT SONIA DHIR AND ANR. VS PRESTAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 229
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya affirmed that when two or more contracts are so intertwined with each other so as to prejudice the parties should separate arbitrations be held, a composite reference of both the contracts can be made to the Arbitrator.
The present application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arises out of a dispute pertaining to two different agreements between the parties. The first agreement, being a leave and licence agreement, was entered into between the petitioner no.2, a company, and the respondent with regard to a particular property.
The second agreement, which is a service agreement, was also entered into on the same day i.e., on July 18, 2023 between the respondent and the petitioner no.1, who is the wife of one of the erstwhile directors of the petitioner no.2 and also herself a director of the petitioner no.2 company.
Case: ASHUNATH BHATTACHARJEE VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 230
The Calcutta High Court has observed that a police official cohabiting with another person during the presence of their spouse is "unbecoming of their status."
The court was dealing with a prayer for anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 307, 498A, 406 IPC against a police officer who was allegedly in a relationship with a practising advocate. Both parties were allegedly married to separate spouses and had children from their respective marriages. It was argued by the petitioner that since their relationship soured, he was falsely accused by the complainant.
Case: STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS VS REBEKA KHATUN MOLLA ALIAS REBEKA MOLLA AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 231
The Calcutta High Court division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya has upheld a single bench's order directing a CBI probe into allegations of custodial torture by the accused arrested for allegedly threatening Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee's daughter.
Earlier, a single bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj had ordered a CBI probe into the allegations.
Case: Gautam Ray Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 232
The Calcutta High Court has directed the state to provide police protection to the puja committee conducting Jagadhatri Puja at Sarkar Para Durga Mandir, in a plea by the committee seeking necessary permissions and protections for organising the puja.
A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta held:
"As the petitioner had been holding the said Jagadhatri Puja at the said venue admittedly for sometime and they have obtained all other necessary permissions for this year, there should not be any impediment upon them to hold the said Jagadhatri Puja this year. In view of the above, let the local police make all necessary arrangements in and around the venue for the petitioner to celebrate and holding Jagadhatri Puja at the said venue. The Officer-in-Charge of the local Police Station shall ensure that no breach of peace takes place and would deploy adequate number of police personnel for such purpose."
Case: Bally Sarvajanik Chath Puja Samity & Ors Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 233
The Calcutta High Court has declined an intervention application by the owner of a property seeking to recall the court's earlier order allowing the usage of a ghat (river bank) situated on the premises of the property for the celebration of Chhath puja by people in the area.
A single bench of Justice Rai Chattopadhyay held:
"The applicants, thus, neither can be called a diligent litigant to be eligible for an equitable remedy, nor can be held to have been able to bring on record with sufficient precision, that fraud in accordance with law, has been committed upon them by the writ petitioner. The writ petition has already been disposed of. The applicants would have other remedies available, if adversely affected by the order of the Court. So far as recall of the order of the Court is concerned, within the limited scope of the existing and prevalent laws as regards the same, the present applications would not be maintainable."
Case: Kailash Vijayvargiya Versus The State of West Bengal and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 234
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against BJP leader Kailash Vijayvargiya, accused under Sections 504/505(1)(b)/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for allegedly misleading posts regarding workers belonging to the ruling party posted on his X (Twitter) account.
It was alleged by the State that Vijayvargiya had shared a fake video of women being assaulted on his X handle and claimed that the ruling party workers were behind the assault. It was argued that this post led to widespread disruption of peace in the area.
Case: PRAJNA PAROMITA SEN AND ANR. VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 235
The Calcutta High Court on Friday observed that the use of loudspeakers and blocking of roads outside a specially-abled children's school for celebrating Jadadhatri puja, showed that the "puja committee thinks they are bigger than the deity itself."
A division bench of CJ TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya orally remarked:
There is a school for specially-abled children. Your puja committee must show concern for the neighbourhood. Particularly the children who are differently abled. Your committee thinks they are bigger than the god. Instead of having the gods idol, we'll have the pictures of your committee members. The president thinks he's bigger than the deity. This is all ego. You should have some regard for the people of the locality.
Case: Rajib Kumar Jha Versus Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 236
The Calcutta High Court declined to stay the release of a movie titled "The Diary of West Bengal" in a plea seeking to halt its release on the grounds of the movie containing communal undertones. The movie depicts events around the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation war.
A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya earlier declined to grant urgent relief, and at the present hearing dismissed the plea as infructuous.
Case: ABDUL KALIM @ AZAD @ ABDUL KALAM VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 237
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to a Bangladeshi national, who was arrested in 2016, on the suspicion of being associated with the banned terrorist organisation Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB).
A division bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Gaurang Kanth allowed the bail application moved by Abdul Kalim alias Azad.
Case Title: MINTECH GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED – CEMENTDIVISION
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 238
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya affirmed that there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that if there is a perversity in the award insofar as the non-consideration of vital evidence is concerned, the same tantamounts to violation of the fundamental policy of Indian Law as well as gives rise to a patent illegality, which is a sufficient ground for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Case: Rahul Amin @ Rahul Haque -Vs- The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 239
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction of an accused who was sentenced under Section 363 of the IPC for the offence of kidnapping a 15-year-old girl who was returning from school with her father.
On her way home, she passed a Maruti car parked on the road. The accused who was sitting inside the car with other men asked his daughter to stop and come inside the car. When she refused, they forced her inside and drove to Burdwan.
The father stated that the accused used to work with the complainant's brother as a laborer and would often visit their house and was thus acquainted with the members of their family.
In upholding the conviction, but releasing the accused due to time already served, a single bench of Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay held:
The consent of the victim is immaterial and the subsisting family bond cannot be an excuse for an escape of the victim from the parental custody at the pretext or behest of pleasant and affable relationship or to justify an act of removing a minor from the custody of her legal guardian and further does not absolve the appellant from being indicted of the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case: SANDIP GHOSH VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 240
The Calcutta High Court has declined to hear a plea for bail moved by former principal of RG Kar Medical College and Hospital Sandip Ghosh, who has been arrested by the CBI in connection with alleged financial irregularities at the college, as well as the rape and murder of a trainee doctor on the college campus.
A single bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh directed Ghosh to approach the trial court seeking bail.
Case: Debal Banerjee @ Debdal Banerjee @ Debdulal Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 241
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against a man who was found in a "compromising position" at a brothel. Petitioner, was charged under the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 (in short Act of 1956).
In quashing the case, a single bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held:
From the record it appears that there is no material on record even after completion of investigation, to demonstrate that the victim was procured or any attempt was made to procure the victim for the prostitution by the present petitioner/customer.
Case: Biswanath Murmu-Vs-The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 242
The Calcutta High Court has held that when an adult victim knowingly and willingly consented to sexual relations with a man, the man cannot later be held guilty for committing the offence of rape on the pretext of marriage.
A single bench of Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay held:
The relationship between the parties was indubitably consensual. The victim lady being an adult was aware of the consequences of such relationship and denial on the part of the appellant to marry her would entail wide ramification.The victim being an adult lady could not have been a prey to the promise to marry concept foregoing her knowledge of subsequent possibilities, probabilities and eventualities if such promise was not acted upon.
Calcutta High Court Allows Protest March Against Alleged Atrocities Faced By Hindus In Bangladesh
Case: Gopal Adhikary & Ors. -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 243
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a protest march against the alleged atrocities faced by members of the Hindu community in ethnic violence which has broken out across Bangladesh.
A single bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh allowed the protest, which is scheduled to lead up to the Bangladesh High Commission, when a delegation of a few members will be meeting the High Commissioner to share concerns over the hardships faced by Hindus in Bangladesh.
Case: Rajesh Kewat Managing Director, Fast Info Legal Services Private Limited Versus The State of West Bengal & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 244
The Calcutta High Court has declined to quash a criminal case against the proprietors of a 'legal services' online company who allegedly duped a lady who had been a victim of a credit card scam and had approached them through Google to help her report the same.
A single bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held:
It appears that under the banner of one Website, namely, https://www.onlinelegalindia.com, the said company has cheated so many persons in the manner as cheated the Opposite Party No. 2. The complainant tried to contact the company further but they did not agree to talk with her and further used slang languages to her. She has been duped by the said company...Caller stated that they have their own cyber cell, where they will register the FIR and for that they will charge a sum of Rs. 1,179/-. The said amount has been paid from her Bank Account, but, despite assurance, neither copy of FIR was provided to her nor any action has been taken by them. No service was provided to her for what they have charged for.
Case: Dr. Shiuli Mukherjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 245
The Calcutta High Court has declined to quash a case against the owner of a nursing home filed by the father of a lady suffering from COVID-19, who allegedly passed away due to treatment by a "fake doctor."
A single bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held:
"It is true that the petitioner in this application has made a conscious effort to distance herself from the other accused Sudipto Sardar by saying that due to Government notification and also due to an unprecedented situation resulted out of COVID 19 pandemic, she was not in a position to verify the genuineness of the documents produced by the other accused but such plea is certainly a disputed question of fact, specially when the fake doctor has signed in the death certificate of the victim disclosing himself as a resident medical officer. All these issues are to be considered and decided during trial."
Case: Arun Uday Paul Chowdhury -Vs-The State of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 246
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a rally by the Bharatiya Janata Party in Kolkata's Howrah area, after permission had been refused by the police authorities.
A single bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh allowed permission for the rally, but expressed string exception over the fact that it had been scheduled to be held along a stretch of "narrow road" which was only 20 metres wide.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, Kolkata Vs M/S. Delta Dealers Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 247
The Calcutta High Court has held that it cannot indulge in factual examination of the material produced or not produced by an assessee-company to explain the share capital and premium received by it, in an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.
A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya thus refused to interfere with an ITAT order which deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer towards “unexplained” share capital and share premium of Rs.15,51,00,000/- under Section 68.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 2 Kolkata Vs Gpt Sons Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 248
The Calcutta High Court has refused to apply Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to a scrutiny notice issued in an amalgamating company's name, despite the Assessing Officer being aware about the company's amalgamation.
Section 292-B provides that no notice or assessment or any proceedings can be deemed to be invalid merely for the reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such notice, assessment or other proceedings.
In the case at hand, a division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that “the fact of amalgamation was well within the knowledge of the assessing officer.”
Case: Mitadru Sau Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 249
The Calcutta High Court has directed the authorities to consider re-assessing a candidate who appeared for the NEET (UG) 2024 exam, and sought to be eligible under the PwD category.
A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta heard the candidate's plea to set aside the disability certificate issued by the Designated Disability NEET Screening Centre, IPGME&R, Kolkata which assessed the petitioner's disability at 31%, and directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner's disability assessment or consider the assessment under the petitioner's UDID card.
Case: Sagari Hembram -vs- State of West Bengal & another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 250
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against a man's second wife, under various sections of the IPC including Section 498A (cruelty), Section 494, 406 and Section 506, as well as under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by his first wife.
Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul quashed the charges and held: "Offence alleged under Section 494 of IPC is applicable to the person who has married for the second time, during the life time of his spouse in a valid marriage. none of the offences alleged in the said complaint are applicable in respect of the petitioner who admittedly is not the relative of the husband of the complainant."
Case: Saddam Hossain Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 251
The Calcutta High Court has denied relief to a NEET candidate belonging to the EWS category who sought to migrate from JIS Medical college, which is a private medical college, to a government medical college.
It was submitted by the petitioner that he belongs to an extremely economically backward section of society and that his EWS rank in the NEET UG exam was enough to secure him admission to a government college. However, it was stated that when he tried to participate in the admission process, he was to receive an OTP from the admission portal, but the OTP never came.
After this, the petitioner stated that he contacted the helpline and was asked to participate in the second round of counselling. When he sought a hearing, the petitioner was told that he could take admission in a private medical college, and when a vacancy arose, he could seek migration to a government college.
In denying the plea of the petitioner, a division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee held:
"The photostat copy of the log obtained from the server of the National Informatics Centre (NIC), as annexed at page 15 of the A/O filed by the respondent nos. 3 to 5 would reveal that though the first round of counselling commenced from 25.07.2023, the appellant fetched the OTP only once and that too on the last date of the said counselling, i.e., on 28.07.2023. Records further reveal that having allegedly failed to obtain the OTP on 28.07.2023, the first representation was submitted about two months thereafter on 26.09.2023, i.e., after publication of the result of the Online Stray Round on 25.09.2023."
Case: In the matter of : Dr. Subires Bhattacharya @ Subiresh Bhattacharjee V. The Central Bureau of Investigation and connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 252
The Calcutta High Court has delivered a split verdict on the bail pleas of Partha Chatterjee, former State Education Minister, and four others, accused in the infamous cash for jobs recruitment scam case.
While the division bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray was considering bail pleas by the accused, Justice Banerjee granted bail to all accused, while Justice Sinha Ray denied bail to Chatterjee, and four other officials from the education department, namely Subiresh Bhattacharjee, Kalyanmoy Gangopadhyay, Ashok Saha and Shanti Prasad Sinha.
Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To Suspended TMC Leader Kuntal Ghosh In Recruitment Scam Case
Case: Kuntal Ghosh v/s. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 253
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to suspended Trinamool Congress youth leader Kuntal Ghosh in the cash-for-jobs recruitment scam case being investigated by the CBI and ED.
While Justice Suvra Ghosh granted bail to the accused subject to a bond of Rs 10 lakhs, he will remain in custody in another case being investigated by the CBI.
Case: Suman Talukder Vs. Namita Paul Talukder
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 254
The Calcutta High Court has observed that it is high time that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is recognised as a ground for divorce under Indian law, by reading it into the grounds of cruelty or desertion, like it is in the UK.
A division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar held:
It transpires from the consistent conduct and lack of interest of the wife that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down. Although irretrievable breakdown is per se not a ground for divorce as yet in Indian Law, the jurisprudence in certain other countries such as the United Kingdom incorporate the component of irretrievable breakdown as an aspect of cruelty, affording a ground of divorce in such cases.
Case: X v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 255
The Calcutta High Court has allowed an infertile couple to avail of the facility of Assistive Reproductive Techniques (ART) to aid them in conceiving a child, even though the husband's age at 58 years, was above the statutory limit prescribed under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Rules, 2022.
Justice Amrita Sinha held: In the instant case, the woman falls within the prescribed age limit but the man is over aged. Due to over age of the husband, the clinic is refusing to provide the service to the couple. The clinic or the bank does not have any authority to refuse service if a single partner of a married couple intends to avail the service. Had the wife approached the clinic individually, the clinic could not have refused to provide ARTS to her. Here, since the parties are in a cordial relationship, they approached the clinic jointly as commissioning couple.
Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To Suspended TMC Youth Vice-President In Recruitment Scam Case
Case: Santanu Banerjee v/s Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 256
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to former Trinamool Congress youth leader Santanu Banerjee, who was being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate in the multi-crore cash for jobs recruitment scam.
Banerjee was one of the many key figures who were arrested by the ED in connection with the scam.
In an order granting him bail, subject to stringent conditions, Justice Suvra Ghosh held:
"It is not in dispute that he is a first-time offender and has not been convicted of any offence earlier. Keeping in view the voluminous evidence to be considered by the learned Trial Court, chance of conclusion of trial within the time frame for incarceration during trial laid down in section 479 is bleak. Rejecting the prayer of the petitioner at this stage and granting him liberty to renew his prayer upon completion of the said time frame shall serve no purpose at all."
Case: Tata Steel Limited (Hooghly Met Coke Division) Haldia Contractors' Mazdoor Sangh and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 257
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a notification by the State of West Bengal through which the state government sought to regulate employment of persons to private industrial establishments.
Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur held: "Any restriction on a trade or business is unreasonable if it is arbitrary or drastic and has no relation to, or goes much more than, the objective of the law which seeks to impose it. The object of Article 19(1)(g) is that the freedom of carrying on a profession should be enjoyed by the citizen to the fullest possible extent without putting “shackles” of avoidable cobwebs of Rules and Regulations putting restrictions in the enjoyment of such freedoms."
Case: Sri Barun Mukherjee and Another Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 258
The Calcutta High Court has held that when a driver's license is invalid on the day of an accident, then it would be a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance agreement by the owner of the offending vehicle, who allowed the driver to drive the vehicle without a valid license.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held: "Furthermore, when the driving licence is not valid on the date of accident, it constitutes a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the owner of the offending vehicle by allowing such driver to drive the vehicle without valid licence."\
Case: Smt. Sunita Das Versus State of West Bengal & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 259
The Calcutta High Court has held that strict proof of marriage is not required while claiming maintenance under section 125 CrPC for a couple who had been living as husband and wife for a prolonged period of time.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held: "Where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonable long period of time, strict proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 strict proof of marriage is not required. Wife has to prove prima facie case of marriage so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of the maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973."
Case: Sunil Harsh v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 260
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a protest march to be scheduled tomorrow, against the alleged atrocities faced by 'sanatani Hindus' in West Bengal.
Justice Tirthankar Ghosh stated that a formal order would be passed tomorrow morning after the exact details of the gathering were furnished by the organisers, but orally allowed them to go ahead with the program, and directed them to follow the instructions of the State administration if their rally stage would be set up in the middle of the road.
The judge also directed that the timings of the rally be reduced to between 2pm to 6pm instead of 12pm to 6:30pm.
Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To Former TMC Aide Ayan Sil In Recruitment Scam Case
Case: Ayan Sil v/s. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 261
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to former TMC leader Santanu Banerjee's aide Ayan Sil in connection with the infamous cash-for-jobs recruitment scam, in which high ranking Trinamool Congress leaders were being probed by the ED and CBI.
Justice Suvra Ghosh while allowing Sil's bail plea noted that many similarly placed accused, including Banerjee himself had also been granted bail by the High Court, and that there was no scope for the trial to commence in the foreseeable future.
Case: LOB DAS VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANOTHER.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 262
The Calcutta High Court has allowed an accused in a rape case to undergo a paternity test in order to prove his claim that he had "non-access" to the alleged victim who claimed to have been raped by him and subsequently become pregnant.
Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul relied on the Supreme Court case of Dipanwita Roy vs. Ronobroto Roy and held:
"In the present case, there is admittedly no marriage between the parties. The victim girl claims the child to be that of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner denying the paternity of the child has claimed non access to the relationship. Thus, when “non-access” is claimed in such a relationship, it is the right of the accused to have the same proved by way of evidence available/possible."
Case: DR. SWAPAN DASGUPTA AND ANR VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 263
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday allowed permission for a rally to go ahead in Kolkata, protesting against the alleged atrocities taking place against Hindus in Bangladesh on 5th December.
While granting permission for the rally, Justice Tirthankar Ghosh orally warned the petitioners' counsel that no vandalism or attacks should take place against public property or public servants at the protests. The judge stated that in case there was any outbreak of violence, the court would henceforth impose a bond condition before allowing permission for such rallies.
Case: MR. PROJAY SINGHA ROY VS RAJASTHAN FERTILIZERS & CHEMICAL CORPORATION LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 264
On 22.11.2024, a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta comprising of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Gaurang Kanth, while dismissing an appeal from a contempt petition filed against the partners of M/s Bengal Industrial Corporation by Rajasthan Fertilisers & Chemical Corporation Limited held “contempt proceeding has been instituted to enforce an undertaking given by the contemnors in GA/2/2022. Enforcement of an undertaking given by a litigant would continue notwithstanding disposal of a matter till the undertaking is discharged.”
Case: MADHUMITA BIBI VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 265
The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday emphasised the need for relevant training to be imparted to police officers. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh expressed surprise at the fact that police in the state were behaving in a "customary manner" and not adapting themselves with the changing times.
The Court was dealing with a case of police inaction, brought by a litigant who claimed embezzlement of funds at a cooperative society. The petitioner claimed that when they discovered the documents which pointed to the embezzlement, she was assaulted.
Case: SADHAN DALUI & ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 266
The Calcutta High Court has overturned the order of the railway tribunal and directed the payment of Rs 8 lakhs along with interest, to the kin of a man who died after falling from a moving train in 2001.
Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul held: The original ticket produced and the number of the ticket being the same as the number given in the claim application prima facie proves that the victim in this was a bonafide passenger of the Indian Railways. The D.P. memo and its entries relating to the opinion of the M.O., injuries noted in the P.M. Report of O/C Bantra and the FIR of the U.D. Case all show that the death of the victim was due to accidental falling from a train carrying passengers.
Case: Sujay Krishna Bhadra v/s. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 267
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to recruitment scam accused Sujay Krishna Bhadra. Bhadra's firm was linked with transfer of proceeds of crime to M/S Leaps & Bounds Pvt Ltd, a company linked with AITC MP Abhishek Banerjee.
Justice Suvra Ghosh granted bail and held: The case essentially hinges on the statement of the petitioner and the co-accused and recovery made pursuant to the same. The prosecution has in fact commenced with the statement of Tapas Kumar Mondal and Kuntal Ghosh under section 50 of the PMLA. It is trite law that prosecution cannot commence with the statement of a co-accused under section 50 of the PMLA.
Case: Dulal Chandra Barman -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 268
A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Saugata Bhattacharyya, Justice, while deciding a writ petition held that a retired government employee is entitled to receive retiral benefits (including pension) in a timely manner, even when there is a pending dispute regarding alleged excess salary drawn during the service period.
Case: The State of West Bengal & Anr. -Versus- Sri Kali Sadhan Bhattacharjee @ Bhattacharyya & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 269
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Prasenjit Biswas, while deciding an appeal held that recovery of alleged excess payments made to a retired employee, without fraud or misrepresentation on their part, is impermissible.
Case: Kunal Gupta v/s. Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 270
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to a man being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA for allegedly running a fake call centre and promising services to victims in exchange for money, which were never delivered. The alleged victims were from countries such as the US, UK, Germany, Australia, etc.
Justice Suvra Ghosh held: The charge sheet of the scheduled offence does not name the victims who are undoubtedly the best persons to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. A constitutional Court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-under trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed.
Case: SK. OSI VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 271
The Calcutta High Court on Monday stressed upon state advocates that in all cases of drinking and driving, where an accident had occurred, the state must add Section 304(II) IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) as a charge against the accused, instead of Section 304(I) for merely reckless driving.
Justice Tirthankar Ghosh stated: "Normal reckless driving S,304(I) is okay....SC has settled the law. Person who is driving must know that he cannot drive after drinking. That fact is not recklessness. In normal course of driving recklessness can happen also. I am giving you the liberty to add the sections before the ACJM."
Case Title: BANKAT GARODIA VS ADITYO PODDAR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 272
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an order passed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act on the basis of an arbitration clause cannot be recalled merely on the ground that reply given to a notice under section 21 was suppressed.
Case: SRI NIRMAL KANODIA & ORS. Vs UMADEVI AGARWALLA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 273
Justice Sugato Majumdar of the High Court at Calcutta, while dismissing an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908, ruled “Unexplained lethargy and long delay in production of document which is otherwise available cannot be cured at this belated stage. Therefore, it is not a fit case where the instant application should be allowed.”
Case: PABITRA ADAK & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 274
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case initiated by a wife against her husband under Section 498A of the IPC, accusing him of cruelty towards her, three years after leaving their matrimonial home. While the wife had left the husband's house in 2020, she filed a complaint accusing him of cruelty in 2023.
Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul held: The allegations in both the cases arise out of the matrimonial dispute between the parties. It is further seen that since the year 2020, when she filed the first case, the complainant has left her matrimonial home and has now after almost three years initiated the present case on 13.04.2023. Accordingly in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law... the case is hereby quashed.
Case: Saumen Kumar Bhattacharjya Versus State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 275
The division bench in the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held that the state is not entitled to recover excess amount paid to a retired officer if that amount was paid to the employee due to mistake on the state's part.
Case: Sri Kartick Chandra Barik Vs. State of West Bengal & Others.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 276
A division bench of Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Debangsu Basak & Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the casual workers who were not appointed against a valid sanctioned post cannot be appointed on a regular post.
Case: Smt. Lachhmina Devi & Anr. -Vs- Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 277
The Calcutta High Court has held that in cases for providing compassionate employment, it is 'reprehensible' to consider the source of inception of a child's birth and discriminate against those who may have been born from a void marriage.
Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay held: "The objective to grant compassionate appointment to redress financial constraints occasioned in a family in the event of the death of the bread earner ensures a means of sufficiency to assuage abrupt crisis and indigence, which cannot be refused ambiguously and unjustifiably on the basis of a circular which is unequivocally unconstitutional to judge a child's entitlement to an appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of its descent."
Case: Sudip Pal Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 278
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC initiated by tenants against the purchaser of a property who had asked the tenants to vacate the premises or face eviction.
Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul held: It is for the respondent no. 2/complainant Garg to file a civil suit. Initiation of the criminal process for oblique purposes, is bad in law and amounts to abuse of process of law. From the materials in the case diary it appears that admittedly there was just one occasion when the petitioner/owner allegedly asked the complainant/tenant to leave the premises. It was after this “one” alleged threat of eviction, the present case has been initiated.
Case: SHERU SONKAR VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 279
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday declined to allow a protest by a social welfare organisation seeking to agitate rights of tribal people, particularly the Santhali community.
The organisation had sought to undertake a 'rail and road roko' protest by blocking railways and national highways on 20th December to get the state government to give into their demands such as inter alia establishment of a Santhali education board.
Case: Jagannath Prasad Gupta & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 280
The Calcutta High Court has held that the right of eminent domain exercised by a state for the larger public interest would prevail over the constitutional right to property of private landowners under Article 300A of the Constitution.
While allowing the authorities to acquire the petitioner's premises for metro railway construction, Justice Aniruddha Roy held:
The right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution shall have to be read by including the provisions laid down under Article 31A of the Constitution of India and not in exclusion thereof. The sovereign power vested in the State to take private property for public use stands concluded with payment of just compensation to the land looser. A superior right to apply private property for public use. A superior right inherent in society and exercised by the sovereign power or upon delegation from it, whereby the subject matter of rights of property may be taken from the owner and appropriated for the general welfare of the society for a public purpose.
Case: Ashok Sharma v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 281
The Calcutta High Court has held that regulatory measures under the Goods and Services Tax Act cannot be labeled as violative of an assessee's right to trade/ business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj reasoned that such regulatory measures are “necessary to ensure compliance and prevent tax evasion”.
Case: Pankaj Mukherjee Vs. Rina Mukherjee nee Biswas
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 282
The Calcutta High Court has held that a "quarrel" between husband and wife would be attributed to both parties and that it would be a part of the normal "wear and tear" of marital life, and could not be grounds to allow divorce on the ground of cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar held:
"The term “quarrel”, by its very definition, involves two parties. As such, fault cannot be attributed solely to one of the parties for an altercation or quarrel. Thus, the consistent case of P.W.2 in his cross-examination that the spouses quarrelled between themselves is not sufficient to attribute any cruelty to the respondent-wife...the exact role of either of the spouses in such altercations cannot be fixed. Thus, the only so-called corroborative evidence of the plaint case is no evidence of cruelty at all but might at best indicate towards the natural wear and tear of married life."
Case Title: Smt. Rita Banerjee & Anr. Versus S.E. Builders & Realtors Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 283
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Krishna Rao has observed that the remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is in addition to the remedies available under other special statutes and the availability of alternative remedies is not a bar to the entertaining of a petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. But once elected, then the other remedy will not lie in respect of the same dispute.
Case: Mr. Dhiraj Guin Vs. Mrs. Tanusree Majumder
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 284
The Calcutta High Court has held that a wife imposing her friends and family on her husband by having them put up at his residence without his willingness would amount to cruelty.
A division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar held:
The mother of the respondent (wife) would not have lived at the Kolaghat residence of the appellant (husband) if he extorted her pension or the respondent's earned money. In any event, the continued presence of Mousumi Paul (friend) and others of her family at the residence of the husband despite his objection and discomfort on such count is borne out by the records.
Case: Shyamchand Mondal Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 285
The Calcutta High Court has held that bail is an essential element of the criminal justice system as it affords a right to a fair trial to the accused in a criminal case.
Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul made these observations in a plea by a man accused under the POCSO act, against an order cancelling his bail issued by the trial court. She said:
"Bail is a Rule and Jail is an exception. This is in line with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty to all citizens of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the 'right to life and personal liberty' to every individual and no one should be deprived of it except according to the procedure established by law. It guarantees the fundamental right to live with human dignity and personal liberty."
Case: Ambujaksha Mahanti Versus Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 286
Calcutta High Court: In 2020, a Division Bench had denied pension benefits to an IIM Calcutta faculty member for failing to opt into the new GPF-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme. However, a Division Bench of Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Ajay Kumar Gupta allowed a review petition against this judgement. The bench held that the relevant pension rules automatically covered employees who did not opt out. It explained that the earlier division bench erred in holding that the employee had to explicitly opt-in; since, it contradicted both the memorandum's provisions and the case of Union of India v. S.L. Verma.
Case: The State of West Bengal & ors. Vs. Joint Platform of Doctors & anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 287
The Calcutta High Court has upheld a single judge order allowing a peaceful sit-in demonstration by the joint forum for doctors, against the brutal rape and murder of a trainee doctor at Kolkata's RG Kar medical college and Hospital.
A division bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Hiranmay Bhattacharya however, modified the single judge's order to the extent of reducing the total attendance at the protest to 100 doctors from the earlier sanctioned 250, due to the state's appeal that major roads would be blocked, causing difficulties to commuters during the busy Christmas period.
Case Title: Britannia Industries Limited vs. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 288
While reiterating that it shall not interfere in matters requiring fact-finding and adjudication, which fall squarely within the statutory domain, the Calcutta High Court advised the manufacturer/ supplier to exhaust the statutory remedies provided under the CGST Act, 2017 including submitting a detailed response to the SCN.
“The statutory framework under the CGST Act provides adequate mechanisms for addressing the petitioner's concerns, including responding to the SCN, participating in adjudication proceedings and availing appellate remedies if dissatisfied with the outcome”, observed a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj.
Case: Smt. Tanusree Das alias Tanushree Das -Vs- The State of West Bengal and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 290
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against a man accused by his sister-in-law of cruelty. Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul noted that the allegations in the FIR were vague and did not directly point at the petitioner. She said:
"As seen from the allegations as made in the written complaint by the opposite party no. 2, it appears that there is no specific allegation against the present petitioner, who is the married sister-in-law (nanad) of the defacto complainant. The allegations are general in nature and the petitioner herein has been named only in the cause title of the petition under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. There does not appear to be any specific allegations against her in the contents of the said application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C."
Calcutta High Court Grants Relief To NUJS VC, Upholds Dismissal Of Sexual Harassment Complaint
Case: X vs. Y & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 291
The Calcutta High Court has granted relief to the Vice-Chancellor of the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), Kolkata, in a case of sexual harassment filed by a faculty member.
A division bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Prasenjit Biswas found no credible evidence to support the claims and upheld the Local Complaint Committee's (LCC) decision to dismiss the complaint, citing the time limitations outlined in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Case: Mohan Kumar Halder -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 292
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty & Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee allowed the condonation of the deficiency in qualifying service for disbursement of pension, and held that the state failed to discharge its obligation within the mandatory time frame set by the Court.
Case: Dr. Subires Bhattacharya @ Subiresh Bhattacharjee Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 293
The Calcutta High Court has denied bail to former education minister Partha Chatterjee and four others, namely Subiresh Bhattacharjee, Kalyanmoy Gangopadhyay, Ashok Saha and Shanti Prasad Sinha in the infamous cash-for-jobs recruitment scam.
Earlier a division bench had delivered a split verdict on the bail applications of the petitioners.
On this occasion Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty denied the bail pleas and held:
"Parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail even at the stage when the bail application of a co-accused is allowed. The Court has to satisfy itself that, on consideration of more materials placed, further developments in the investigations and other different considerations, there are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant on bail. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused persons, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. Court cannot proceed on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment, which again cannot pass muster under the law."
Case: Pradeep Kumar Naredi vs. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 294
The Calcutta High Court recently reiterated that when the settlement applications were filed before the date on which the Finance Act 2021 did not come into effect, then taxpayers had vested right of preferring the application in absence of any statute prohibiting the said application.
The Division Bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya reiterated that retrospective legislation cannot affect the vested rights.