NOMINAL INDEXMahuya Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 14Saran Gopal Krishnan Vs Narcotics Control Bureau, Kolkata 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 15Professor Syed Haider Hassan Kazimi and others v The State of West Bengal and another 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 16Kalighat Bahumukhi Seva Samiti Versus The State of West Bengal and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 17Suvendu Adhikari v...
NOMINAL INDEX
Mahuya Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 14
Saran Gopal Krishnan Vs Narcotics Control Bureau, Kolkata 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 15
Professor Syed Haider Hassan Kazimi and others v The State of West Bengal and another 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 16
Kalighat Bahumukhi Seva Samiti Versus The State of West Bengal and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 17
Suvendu Adhikari v State of WB 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 18
Oberoi Building & Investment (P) Limited verses CIT and Another 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 19
NAZIA ELAHI KHAN VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 20
Professor Bidyut Chakraborty Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 21
Champa Impex Private Limited Versus Union Of India And Others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 22
Citation: 2023 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: 2023 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: 2023 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: 2023 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: 2023 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: 2023 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: 2023 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: 2023 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: 2023 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: 2023 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.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Calcutta High Court Inaugurates Portal For Monitoring Of Criminal Side High Court Cases (SARTHAC)
The Calcutta High Court inaugurated a portal for monitoring of Criminal side cases instituted before the High Court.
The portal known as Systemized Administration & Regulation of Tendering and Handling All Court Cases (SARTHAC) was initially developed and launched by the State Government in 2016, as an interface where all appellate side writ pleas filed before the High Court could be accessed online and has now been enhanced to include criminal case monitoring as well.
The inauguration ceremony was presided over by Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam in the presence of Justice Debangshu Basak and Law Minister Moloy Ghatak.
Case: Enforcement Directorate v The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case No: C. R. R. 164 of 2024
The Calcutta High Court has directed the State to file an affidavit explaining the apparent inconsistencies in FIRs filed pertaining to the recent attacks that occurred on members of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) by 'mobs of people' in West Bengal's Sandeshkhali and Bongaon, while the agency was about to conduct a raid on local leader Shahjahan Sheikh in the 'Ration Scam.'
A single bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha noted, that while the agency had registered a complaint before the police station under various sections of the IPC, another FIR had already been registered citing a different version of events before the agency could file its complaint
Case: ED v State of WB
Case No: WPA 802/2024
The Calcutta High Court directed the installation of CCTV cameras outside the residence of political leader and Ration scam accused Shahjahan Sheikh in order to gather information on his whereabouts.
A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta passed these directions in a plea by the Enforcement Directorate, whose members were assaulted by a mob of people allegedly on Sheikh's instructions when they had gone to raid his home in connection with the Ration Scam.
Case: ED v State of WB
Case No: WPA 802/2024
The Calcutta High Court constituted a special investigation team (SIT) comprising officers from the State police and Central Bureau of Investigation, to be headed by an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police from both sides.
A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta expressed a lack of confidence in the local police investigation and directed that no officers of the Jurisdictional Nazat Police Station should form part of the SIT.
The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by CJI DY Chandrachud has passed a resolution to make permanent, five additional judges of the Calcutta High Court.
Another judge was recommended for a fresh one-year term as an additional judge.
Calcutta High Court Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam informed advocates that after a five-year hiatus, the High Court was in the process of recommencing the process of designating advocates as senior advocates.
On mentioning by a Senior Advocate about the list of advocates for designation as seniors pending before the CJ, Justice Sivagnanam said, "Actually the development is, in line with the Indira Jaising judgement, the shortlisted candidates have to be published. That will be done today. Then there is a 15-day window for objections, Already it is being done. That format is uploaded. It is moving."