Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 25th March-31st March 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

Odisha Power Generation Corporation Limited Vs. M/s. Techniche Consulting Service and Others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 74

Dipanwita Das (Sarkar) Vs. Moloy Das 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 75

Dr Pranat Tudu v State of West Bengal 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 76

Reshmi Bhagat Vs. State of West Bengal and others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 77

Tree House Education And Accessories Ltd. Versus Holy Trust School 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 78

[S.18 MSMED Act] Arbitration Agreement Pending Adjudication By Facilitation Council Is Eclipsed, Not Obliterated: Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 74

Case: Odisha Power Generation Corporation Limited Vs. M/s. Techniche Consulting Service and Others

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that an arbitration agreement pending adjudication by the facilitation council is eclipsed not obliterated.

A single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held:

There is nothing in the MSMED Act to suggest, least of all section 18, that the arbitration conducted by the Facilitation Council would subsume the arbitration agreement between the parties or alter the seat/venue chosen by them. At best, the arbitration agreement is eclipsed during the adjudication by the Facilitation Council – only to rise again after the Council pronounces its decision. Thus, the arbitration agreement between the parties takes precedence after publication of the award by the Facilitation Council.

Collective Duty Of Husband & Wife To Wither Trivial Issues, Respect Each Other's Decisions & Create Congenial Atmosphere: Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 75

Case: Dipanwita Das (Sarkar) Vs. Moloy Das

The Calcutta High Court has allowed an appeal, dismissing an application for dissolution of marriage while holding that in matrimonial life it is the collective duty of a couple to create a congenial atmosphere.

A division bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Madhuresh Prasad held that the Constitution recognises equality in gender and both partners must show mutual respect to each others' decision as it is the hallmark of society.

Deemed Public Interest In Seeking To Contest Elections To Represent Public: Calcutta HC Allows Govt Doctor's Resignation To Contest Lok Sabha Polls

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 76

Case: Dr Pranat Tudu v State of West Bengal

The Calcutta High Court has recently allowed the resignation of a government doctor, who sought to resign from his position to contest as a candidate in the upcoming Lok Sabha parliamentary elections.

In taking note of the statutory regulations around the petitioner's case, a single bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha held:

On the issue of public interest being the primary consideration under Clause 14 (West Bengal Service Rules), apart from the same being directory, this Court is of the view that when any person seeks to contest an election to the post of a public representative, he is deemed as a person seeking to represent the public at large. There is, therefore, deemed public interest in a person seeking to contest in anelection and to be a representative of the people.

Objective Of Public Examinations Can't Be Construed To Be So Restrictive As To Be Cruel To Candidates: Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 77

Case: Reshmi Bhagat Vs. State of West Bengal and others

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that the object of a public examination cannot be construed in such a restrictive manner which would make it cruel to the candidates.

A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held:

The object of a public examination cannot by any means be construed to be so restrictive as to be cruel on the candidates, particularly for brilliant people like the petitioner, who has already cleared the preliminary and mains in the tough banking examination concerned. The endeavour of the authorities ought to be encourage such people and not to shut them out on trivial issues.

Arbitration Act | When Parties Engage In Constant Communication, Unjust To Dismiss Claim Solely On Grounds Of Being Time-Barred: Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 78

Case Title: Tree House Education And Accessories Ltd. Versus Holy Trust School

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that it would be an unnatural construction of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where a party with a bona fide and a genuine claim is left in the lurch on the defence of the claim being barred by limitation. It held that when parties engage in constant communication for the settlement of claims, it would be unjust to dismiss a claim solely on the grounds of being time-barred.