NOMINAL INDEXBerger Paints India Limited v JSW Paints Private Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 1Gopal Ranjan Bandopadhyay @ Gopal Ranjan Banerjee v Smt. Manidipa Banerjee (Talukdar) 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 2Poulami Biswas v Shamik Biswas 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 3State of West Bengal & Ors. v Achinta Roy @ Achinta Kumar Roy Ghatak Choudhury 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 4MINATI BHADRA & ORS. v DILIP KR. BHADRA...
NOMINAL INDEX
Berger Paints India Limited v JSW Paints Private Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 1
Gopal Ranjan Bandopadhyay @ Gopal Ranjan Banerjee v Smt. Manidipa Banerjee (Talukdar) 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 2
Poulami Biswas v Shamik Biswas 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 3
State of West Bengal & Ors. v Achinta Roy @ Achinta Kumar Roy Ghatak Choudhury 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 4
MINATI BHADRA & ORS. v DILIP KR. BHADRA & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 5
Biresh Poddar and another v State of West Bengal and others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 6
Swapan Kumar Roy Versus The Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 7
Tufan Mahata Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 8
Bapan Mondal -versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 9
Fabian Ricklin, alias Ranabir Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 10
M/s. Narendra Tea Company Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 11
M/s Himadri Speciality Chemical & Anr. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 12
Niladri Saha v State of WB 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 13
Mahuya Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal and others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 14
Saran Gopal Krishnan Vs Narcotics Control Bureau, Kolkata 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 15
Professor Syed Haider Hassan Kazimi and others v The State of West Bengal and another 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 16
Kalighat Bahumukhi Seva Samiti Versus The State of West Bengal and others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 17
Suvendu Adhikari v State of WB 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 18
Oberoi Building & Investment (P) Limited verses CIT and Another 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 19
NAZIA ELAHI KHAN VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 20
Professor Bidyut Chakraborty Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 21
Champa Impex Private Limited Versus Union Of India And Others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 22
BGM and M-RPL-JMCT (JV) v Eastern Coalfields Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 24
Sardar Lalu Singh v The State of West Bengal and others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 25
Pacharia Exports Private Limited Vs. The Special Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 26
Ranaghat OBR Brihattara Graduate Teachers' Association -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 27
In the matter of : Ranjit Das @ Mohan Das Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 28
Commissioner Of Customs (Port), Kolkata Versus M/S. Dredging Corporation Of India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 30
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 1
Case: Berger Paints India Limited v JSW Paints Private Limited
The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed an interim injunction application in a suit filed by Berger Paints to restrain JSW Paints from using the term 'SILK' in conjunction with their product range sold under the trademark 'HALO'.
A single bench of Justice Krishna Rao held:
The use of the expression “SILK” for paint finish is customary in the trade and is not capable of being protected as trademark with respect of paints, emulsions and distempers. The defendant has not applied for the registration of the mark “SILK” and does not intend to market its product under a trade mark “SILK”. The products of the defendant are sold under the mark “HALO”, such as, with the word “Silk” being used only to define the finish/sheen of the paint. By comparison of the two marks, in my view both appears to be substantially different and there is no similarity between both the labels.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 2
Case: Gopal Ranjan Bandopadhyay @ Gopal Ranjan Banerjee v Smt. Manidipa Banerjee (Talukdar)
The Calcutta High Court has recently dismissed an appeal by a husband challenging the decision of the trial court which dismissed his prayer for dissolution of marriage with his wife, granting him a decree of judicial separation instead.
The petitioner/husband had alleged that the wife had committed acts of 'mental cruelty' by alleging that the petitioner's mother had a mental illness, misbehaving with her in-laws, and had also deserted the petitioner by taking away their daughter and leaving the matrimonial home.
A division bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Madhuresh Prasad held:
The issue of mental illness has not been established or proved with any material in the trial. Such allegation, per se cannot be viewed to constitute an act of mental cruelty. There is also nothing on record to show that the petitioner at any time prior to filing of the suit in question had objected to the respondent residing with her parents, or made any efforts to bring her back to the matrimonial home.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 3
Case Name: Poulami Biswas v Shamik Biswas
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that a wife making false allegations against her husband & his family members under section 498A of the IPC would constitute an element of the offence of cruelty, which is a ground for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).
In allowing the husband's plea for dissolution of marriage, a division bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Madhuresh Prasad held:
Interestingly, the wife in her evidence categorically deposed that she initiated the proceeding under Section 498A/406 of the IPC on the advice of the learned Advocate. The said proceeding ended in an acquittal of all the accused named therein including the husband. Lodging a false criminal case under Section 498A/406 of the IPC is also one of the element of cruelty and, therefore, the Court cannot ignore the same while considering the appeal on merit.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 4
Case: State of West Bengal & Ors. v Achinta Roy @ Achinta Kumar Roy Ghatak Choudhury
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that the State must protect citizens and respect their Constitutional right to property, enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
In directing the authorities to pay damages of Rs 2 lakhs for unlawfully evicting the plaintiffs from the suit property, without any basis in the year 2000, a single-bench of Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury directed for the plaintiff's possession to be restored within 90 days of the order. It held:
Admittedly during pendency of the proceeding before the learned court below the defendant -State evicted the plaintiffs from the suit property which was out and out an illegal act. State is supposed to protect the citizens and respect their right of property which is being considered as constitutional right. Therefore, the State has incurred the obligation to pay damages for unlawful possession of the property effect from 1.5.2000 till the possession is restored.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 5
Case: MINATI BHADRA & ORS. v DILIP KR. BHADRA & ORS.
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that when documentary evidence is available, oral testimony of witnesses would not be able to rebut its probative value.
A single bench of Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury held: When documentary evidence is available the oral testimony of D.W. 2 is not sufficient to rebut the probative value of Exhibit- 7, 8, 8/1 and 9.
The Court was hearing an appeal by the plaintiff who had initially filed a suit for partition stating that Chhabi Rani Bhadra, his mother was the original owner of the suit property, and died intestate in 1984, leaving the property to her husband and son.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 6
Case: Biresh Poddar and another v State of West Bengal and others
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a plea for early release, moved by a convict, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering his wife and five children by strangulation inside their house, as well as stabbing another tenant of the premises with a sharp weapon.
A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya noted that the convict had suffered almost 23 years of imprisonment and was on parole at the present juncture. In ordering for him to not be retaken into custody, it held:
The heinous nature of the crime committed by the petitioner no.1 has been sufficiently addressed by penalizing the petitioner no.1 by way of almost twenty three years of incarceration. The mere apprehension of certain people cannot be a sufficient reason for refusing premature release to the petitioner. It is made clear that since the petitioner no.1 is already on parole which is due to end tomorrow, that is, January 4, 2024, the petitioner no.1 shall not be taken back in custody.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 7
Case: Swapan Kumar Roy Versus The Union of India & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court has come to the aid of a CISF Constable who had been prematurely retired by the Senior Commandant of his unit/DIG for refusing transfers to locations away from Kolkata, with leave of the High Court, to stay with his daughter who has special needs.
In allowing the petitioner to place his case before the Review Board for reconsideration of his order of premature retirement, a single bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury held:
I permit the petitioner to make a representation before the review committee. In the event the review succeeds then all consequential terminal benefits be made available to the petitioner by treating the petitioner to be in notional service till the date of normal superannuation. Needless to note that the aforesaid direction is being passed in the peculiar facts of the case. The above decision must be taken by the review committee within a period of six weeks from the date of making the representation along with the communication of this order, having due regard to the orders passed by the coordinate bench of this Hon'ble Court, and the special situation encountered by the petitioner on account of his specially abled child.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 8
Case: Tufan Mahata Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court has laid down guidelines for Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari's visit to Netai village in order to pay homage to those who lost their lives in the 2011 Netai massacre.
The Court issued these guidelines in a plea seeking directions on the State authorities to allow the LOP and his associates to visit the village and to garland the Shahid Bedi on 7th January 2024.
A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta held:
The petitioner and the Leader of Opposition, along with the security personnel only, shall be entitled to visit the place for garlanding at the Shahid Bedi and paying homage to the victims on that date between 5 PM and 6 PM. The Administration shall make adequate arrangements by deputing armed personnel so that no untoward incident can take place. It is clarified that taking into consideration the gravity of the occasion, on either dates none of the parties would make it a political issue or indulge in slogan shouting or give political speeches or commit other similar acts.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 9
Case: Bapan Mondal -versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on a man who claimed that his wife had gone missing and was having an illicit affair after himself 'dumping her' and their minor child at his in-laws' house.
A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta held:
The categorical stand taken by the petitioner in the writ petition and before the police authorities about going missing of his wife is in direct contradiction with the information that is being provided today. The difference becomes more stark when read in the light of the report filed by the State. The petitioner cannot feign ignorance about the actual facts and yet, try to set criminal law in motion with a distorted version. The petitioner is not coming with clean hands. This Court finds no merit in this application. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 10
Case: Fabian Ricklin, alias Ranabir Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition by a Swiss citizen, who was adopted in the year 1988, against the Specialised Adoption Agency through which he was given for adoption.
Petitioner argued that after coming of age, he began a 'search for his roots' and wanted to retrace his pre-adoptive links, but due to the failure of the respondent authorities to preserve its records
In dismissing his plea upon holding that the petitioner did not have any penal action or claim for damages against the respondent authorities, a single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held:
In the absence of any strict legal obligation on the adoption agency to retain such surrender deed, particularly for so long, no penal action or direction can be passed against the respondent no. 5 with regard to the admitted absence of the document with it. Hence, the petitioner does not have a remedy either in damages or in penal action against the Specialised Adoption Agency insofar as the non-preservation of the surrender deed is concerned. Hence, the remedy sought in the present writ petition cannot be granted, particularly in view of the delay of almost two decades by the petitioner to come up with the present search after attaining majority.
EOU Procuring Excise Duty Tea From Manufacturer Entitled For Drawback: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: M/s. Narendra Tea Company Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 11
The Calcutta High Court has held that 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) which has procured bulk tea from the manufacturer and excise duty is entitled to avail the benefit of drawback.
The bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has observed that the petitioner has procured excise duty-paid tea in respect of the subject shipping bills. The sample invoices and shipping bills clearly show duty was paid on procurement by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, there could be no reason to deny a drawback to the petitioner, which is an EOU.
Case Title: M/s Himadri Speciality Chemical & Anr. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 12
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the ex parte order imposing excise duty on the incineration of lean gas used in the generation of electricity.
The bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority concerned to pass a fresh adjudication order by allowing the petitioner to file an objection against the adjudication order by treating it as show cause notice and to take all the points raised in this writ petition.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 13
Case: Niladri Saha v State of WB
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday questioned the bonafide research of a petitioner who had filed a PIL challenging the attacks on members of the Enforcement Directorate who had gone to conduct raids in West Bengal's Sandeshkhali and Bongaon.
A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya dismissed the plea and held:
"This plea seeks an investigation by the NIA or CBI into an incident at Sandeshkhali. The annexures are nothing but newspaper reports. The petitioner who is a practising advocate, appears to have not done any research. Based upon newspaper reports, without any research by the petitioner, a writ petition cannot be entertained at this juncture. The matter concerns an attack upon ED officials, and the petitioner is not advised as to what the said central agency has to do, as they have all the expertise to handle this situation. Therefore we are not inclined to entertain the matter as a PIL. Dismissed."
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 14
Case: Mahuya Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal and others
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that the right of a person under Article 21 to live a life of dignity cannot be deprived merely because he was convicted.
A single-bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya directed the Sentence Review Board (SSRB) to reconsider the plea for premature release of the convict filed by his wife (petitioner) and held:
"The right of the petitioner under Article 21 to live a life of dignity cannot be deprived merely because the petitioner was convicted. The life behind bars has already been undergone by the petitioner for a considerable period. There cannot be any double punishment on the petitioner by refusing the petitioner an opportunity to reintegrate in mainstream society even if the petitioner is otherwise eligible."
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 15
Case: Saran Gopal Krishnan Vs Narcotics Control Bureau, Kolkata.
The Calcutta High Court has recently upheld warrants of arrest and proclamation & attachment issued in an NDPS case against the petitioner, who hailed from Kerala but was residing in the UAE for employment.
Petitioner was alleged to have caused the delivery of MDMA and LSD blots to his associates in Calcutta, through co-accused over the dark web in 2017.
A single-bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) dismissed the petitioner's revision plea, and held:
Petitioner [caused] delivery of MDMA, LSD from one of his darkweb vendor of drugs available at Nashik and the vendor at Nashik further shipped the consignment to Calcutta through DTDC Courier service. Another accused confessed that on the directions of the petitioner, he shipped drugs to Kolkata. He further stated that he and the petitioner used to communicate through encrypted chat of darkweb, and petitioner used to send money through “BITCOIN.” In such circumstances, the Court will have to consider the gravity of the offences and role played by the Accused. Any indulgence shown in such cases considering the conduct, would clearly amount to an abuse of process of law.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 16
Case: Professor Syed Haider Hassan Kazimi and others v The State of West Bengal and another
The Calcutta High Court has quashed an order passed by the Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Minority Affairs, and Madrasah Education Department for the nomination of the respondent as a member of the Waqf Board upon finding that the respondent was not suitably qualified to occupy the post.
A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya also directed the State to undertake a fresh nomination process for the selection of another member to fill up the vacant post in conformity with the Wakf Act, 1995.
It held: Not a single sentence discloses how respondent no. 2 qualifies as a recognized scholar from any perspective, let alone adverting to such scholasticism in Islamic Theology. Merely being the member of a Haj Committee appointed by the State or the nazir or mutawalli of a waqf estate does not, in any manner whatsoever, confer any proficiency on a person within the contemplation of scholasticism or scholarship in Shia Islamic theology, although it may indicate that the person is favoured by or is close to the State administration.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 17
Case: Kalighat Bahumukhi Seva Samiti Versus The State of West Bengal and others
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a plea moved by the Kalighat Bahumukhi Seva Samiti to hold a live telecast of the inauguration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya and to perform puja by constructing a temporary stage at Deshpran Sasmal Park, Kolkata on 22nd January.
A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta held:
It appears that at least the venue of the programme being the Deshpran Sasmal Park could be agreed upon by the parties. The petitioner is, therefore, permitted to hold the function on 22nd January, 2024 from 9 am to 6 pm on a portion (roughly, half) of the Deshpran Sasmal Park. The number of participants in the programme shall not exceed 60(sixty). The Police Authorities shall render necessary help, if required. The petitioner shall abide by the necessary norms regarding the use of the sound equipments and other prevailing laws.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 18
Case: Suvendu Adhikari v State of WB
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a plea challenging the 'Sampriti All-Religion Harmony Rally' which is proposed to be held in Kolkata by the State government and the ruling political party, on the same date as the consecration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya i.e. 22nd January 2024.
In disposing of the plea moved by BJP MP and Leader of Opposition in West Bengal Suvendu Adhikari, a division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya held:
Several pleas have been filed by the writ petitioner himself seeking to hold rallies. In our view, so far as the rally to be organised in Kolkata on 22nd January, the route has also been mentioned. Undoubtedly such a rally will disrupt the normal flow of traffic and cause inconvenience. It is the duty of the state to ensure that the common public is not affected on account of this rally since 22nd Jan which is a working day. No speech shall be made hurting the sentiments of people belonging to a religion or any sect. All participants of the rally shall be sensitised. If any violation occurs, the organisers may be held responsible.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 19
Case Title: Oberoi Building & Investment (P) Limited verses CIT and Another
Finding that assessee's income from sub-letting/sub-licensing the space in question, has always been accepted by Respondent / Income Tax Department as, income from business, the Calcutta High Court held that assessee's income from sub-licensing/sub-letting is chargeable to tax as business income and not as income from house property.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed that “Since the object of the assesse company and its activity is the business of renting/licencing/sub-licencing shops etc. and it derived income mainly from the aforesaid business activity, therefore, the income from contribution/sub-licencing derived by the assesse is business income and not income from house property”.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 20
Case: NAZIA ELAHI KHAN VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking the declaration of a 'dry day' in the State of West Bengal on the 22nd of January on account of the consecration ceremony of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.
In dismissing the plea, a division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya observed:
"This a policy decision. You will have to challenge the enactments which allow for [liqour] licensing. Actually, there is a prohibition. It is not free, anyone cannot manufacture. A beverage corporation is there, and the trade is regulated by way of an enactment under the Excise Act. Unless those provisions are challenged, we cannot do anything."
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 21
Case: Professor Bidyut Chakraborty Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order passed by a Special Court under the Atrocity Act, 1st Court, Suri, calling for the personal appearance of former Visva Bharati University Vice-Chancellor Professor Vidyut Chakraborty in a case against him under Section 500 of IPC (defamation) read with Sections 3(1)(r)(v)(p)(s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
In setting aside the trial court's order calling for personal appearance, a single bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, held:
The petitioner herein has filed an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 07.10.2023 praying for exemption of personal appearance. In the light of the above discussions, this Court does not have any other option but to set aside the impugned order. The learned Trial Court is directed to hear the parties and dispose of the application under Section 205 of the CrPC in accordance with law without insisting upon physical appearance of the petitioner before the Ld. Trial Court.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 22
Case Title: Champa Impex Private Limited Versus Union Of India And Others
The Calcutta High Court has held that the assessee had repeatedly sought adjournments, which would show that the assessee attempted to drag the matter along, knowing well that the assessment would be time-barred.
The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya have observed that the provision of Section 148A of the Act has been scrupulously followed by the assessing officer, and there is no error in the decision-making process of the court to interfere.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 23
Case: All India Secular Front (ISF) & anr. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.
[Update: A division bench presided over by Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam has partially modified the single-bench order upon appeal by the State and directed the petitioner's to hold their rally at another Indoor Stadium offered by the State and not Victoria House.]
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a plea by the Indian Secular Front (ISF) to hold a peaceful meeting in front of Victoria House in Kolkata on 21st January 2024.
State had objected to the venue of the meeting on the grounds that there were multiple events occurring around Victoria House on the same day and hence had suggested an alternative venue for the same. It also argued that in 2023, a meeting by the same organisation had led to offensive sloganeering.
In allowing the plea by the ISF, a single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta held:
These and the nearby areas are the places where traditionally meetings, assemblies and rallies take place. There has to be some better and more cogent reason for not allowing a meeting to be held at the particular place, especially when a permission had been sought quite some time back. The issues of disturbances having taken place in the previous year's meeting are pending decision. It may have to be found out whether these acts were initiated by the other alleged miscreants or not. But, it is not for this Court to delve into such issues.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 24
Case: BGM and M-RPL-JMCT (JV) v Eastern Coalfields Limited
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that parties to an arbitration agreement must clearly state their intention to arbitrate through a resounding yes and there cannot be any ifs and buts or an undecided mumble.
A single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya while dismissing a plea for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, held:
Section 11 of the 1996 Act is one of the earlier interventions by a Court on the presumption of the existence of an arbitration clause. The Court must hence ensure the existence of an arbitration agreement before flagging of the road to the award and beyond. The parties cannot set forth on the procedural journey if there is no arbitration agreement. In the present case, the arbitration agreement muddies the waters with regard to the immediate and unequivocal reference of the dispute to arbitration. The word “may” in the relevant part of the clause gives an option to the parties to either refer the dispute to arbitration or hold back on the arbitration. The word “may” makes the clause conditional on a future event/s or to the other parts of the clause and gives the parties the option to resile from the clause.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 25
Case: Sardar Lalu Singh v The State of West Bengal and others
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order of excommunication by the 'Gurudwara Chhota Singh Sangat,' against the petitioner, excommunicating him from the entire Agrahari Sikh community due to an alleged matrimonial dispute between the petitioner's son and his wife.
In setting aside the order of excommunication and directing the respondent office-bearers to pay costs of Rs 1.5 lakhs to the petitioner due to the harassment suffered by him, a single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held:
Excommunication from an entire community, not pertaining to religious persecution alone but also the social life and relations of the petitioner is such a stringent action, which touches the normal life of a person and the right to live with dignity. Petitioner [cannot] be held responsible for a dispute between his son and his daughter-in-law. Even if there is such a dispute, the same cannot castigate either of the parties to the said dispute, more so at the behest of a Gurudwara. For such innocuous reason, the extreme step of social, religious and economic excommunication unleashed on the petitioner is palpably violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Payment To Third Party Instead Of Selling Dealer, ITC Not Allowable: Calcutta High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 26
Case Title: Pacharia Exports Private Limited Vs. The Special Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court has held that the writ petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of input tax credit as he has not paid the amount to the selling dealer but to a third party.
The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya has observed that the writ petitioner is precluded from adding words to a statute to state that he will be entitled to the benefit of the input tax credit, though he has not paid the amount to the selling dealer to a third party based on certain instructions.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 27
Case: Ranaghat OBR Brihattara Graduate Teachers' Association -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors
The Calcutta High Court has declined a plea by an association of teachers challenging a decision of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) whereby the timing of the ensuing Madhyamik Pariksha (SE) 2024 had been rescheduled from 11.45 am-3 pm to 9:45 a.m- 1 p.m.
While observing that the decision of the WBBSE, which was communicated only 2 weeks before the commencement of the exams could have been notified in advance, a single bench of Justice Biswajit Basu directed the State to ensure that all possible assistance was provided to the exam-taking students and laid down guidelines for the same.
It held: The Board should have announced the rescheduled timing much earlier than just two weeks before the examination and thereby has made the situation irreversible. This Court, for the said reason only is not interfering with the decision of the Board to reschedule the timing of the examination. However, the Board and the State Administration must ensure that the students shall not face any difficulty in taking up the said examination.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 28
Case: In the matter of : Ranjit Das @ Mohan Das
The Calcutta High Court has recently allowed a plea for anticipatory bail moved by a journalist working with ABP Ananda News, who was allegedly falsely implicated in criminal cases after having taken videos of illegal sand mining.
A division bench of Justice Debangshu Basak and Justice Shabbar Rashidi held:
Petitioner claims that he recorded illegal sand mining activities in pursuit of his journalist endeavours. There is an issue of false implication arising out of his journalistic work Freedom of press is indespensible to democracy. Freedom of press can be maintained by ringfencing the press from intimidation. A journalist is part of the press. His freedom to execute his journalistic endeavours needs to be protected. In such circumstances, we grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 29
Case Title: Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Gopal Sharma
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the quashing of an order passed by the CIT speculating on the possibility of understatement in closing stock without a specific finding. The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyy has observed that the assessing officer has conducted a due inquiry and thereafter completed his scrutiny assessment. The tribunal also noted that the CIT, in his order under Section 263, has only observed that there is a possibility of understatement.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 30
Case Title: Commissioner Of Customs (Port), Kolkata Versus M/S. Dredging Corporation Of India Limited
The Calcutta High Court has held that when the goods are still in use, the question of passing the burden of customs duty does not arise, and the question of unjust enrichment will not be applicable. The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has observed that the appellate authority took note of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant in which the Chartered Accountant again certified that all the goods brought under the cover of the three bills of entries are still in use by the Dredging Corporation of India. The Director (Operations and Technical) of the assessee certified that the vessel is in operation and has not been sold.