NOMINAL INDEXThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Winsome International Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 180State Of West Bengal And Ors. Vs Sirajul Islam Gharami And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 181National Human Rights Commission and Ors v The State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 182Vikas Kumar Bajoria & Anr. Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 1831. MSMED Act | Defaulting...
NOMINAL INDEX
- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Winsome International Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 180
- State Of West Bengal And Ors. Vs Sirajul Islam Gharami And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 181
- National Human Rights Commission and Ors v The State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 182
- Vikas Kumar Bajoria & Anr. Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 183
Case: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Winsome International Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 180
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that where the supplier is a “medium enterprise” under Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), the rate of interest levied on the arbitral award would be at the bank rate notified by the RBI, and not three-times of such rate, as would have been the case if it were a Micro, or Small enterprise under Section 16 of the MSMED Act.
Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was hearing a petition by New India Assurance Co Ltd for a stay of the arbitral award of Rs 24,11,07,449.15 imposed on them by a sole-Arbitrator, on the grounds that the Arbitrator had set the rate of interest at 24.6%, which was three-times the bank rate notified by the RBI, in spite of the respondents being a “medium enterprise.”
The court said three kinds of enterprises are defined in three distinct ways under MSMED Act and cannot be viewed as a common set of similar enterprise.
Case: State Of West Bengal And Ors. Vs Sirajul Islam Gharami And Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 181
The Calcutta High Court set aside a single-judge order directing registration of FIR against certain police officials of Baruipur district for alleged violence, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Questioning the perpetual practise of approaching the High Court under Writ Jurisdiction when there are alternate remedies available under other statutes, a bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivgananam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya orally remarked:
“How is your writ maintainable? Why do you not avail remedy (under 156(3) CrPC)? Why short circuit to the writ court? The remedy is under a statute, and you go before a judicial magistrate. Here in writ jurisdiction, on affidavits, how can we give a positive direction for registration of FIR? This has become a routine affair. You have virtually converted the single-bench residuary determination to a Magistrates court. Day in and day out we are seeing…it is a surprise for me…this process in unknown to law. There are umpteen decisions of the SC, rendered by Justice Markandey Katju who says these cases should not be entertained under 226. The magistrate is there to ascertain the facts of a case…he can monitor investigation or issue any positive directions.
Case: National Human Rights Commission and Ors v The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 182
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) against a single-judge’s order which set aside appointment of observers and other related directions issued by the Commission “to protect human rights” in the course of the 2023 Panchayat Elections, on the basis of a media reports on wide-spread violence.
In dismissing the appeal, a Division Bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya held that, being a body sui juris as pointed out by the single-judge as well as the Advocates for the SEC, the NHRC would have to trace the validity of its actions to its parent statute, viz. the Human Rights Act, 1993 (“Act”), which was not done in this case.
“NHRC being a statutory authority constituted under the 1993 Act has to act within the forecorners of the said statute and the regulations framed thereunder subject to the limitations imposed upon it by the statute and the regulations thereunder. It is the duty of the SEC, being a constitutional authority to appoint observers in accordance with the provisions of the 2003 Act. Therefore, the NHRC cannot encroach upon the jurisdiction of the SEC by appointing observers” it was held.
Case: Vikas Kumar Bajoria & Anr. Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 183
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a revision application to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioners, who were charged under various sections of the IPC and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, for outraging the modesty of a woman belonging to a scheduled caste community.
In holding that the case must proceed to trial since a prima facie case had been made out against the petitioners, a single-judge bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held:
“The alleged incident in this case took place in the complainant’s courtyard within public view and there are witnesses to the incident (Section 3(1) (x) of the SC & ST Act and there is also an allegation of tearing the blouse and pulling the saree of the complainant’s wife and other allegations. Admittedly the dispute relates to a land which is occupied by the complainant (Section 3 (1) (iv) of the SC & ST Act). Thus a prima facie case appears from the materials on record against the petitioners and there being sufficient materials on record, the case should be permitted to proceed towards trial.”
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Calcutta High Court held a full-court reference to bid farewell to Justice Subrata Talukdar on the occasion of his retirement.
Justice Talukdar was elevated from the Bar as Additional Judge of the Calcutta High Court on October 30, 2013, and subsequently appointed as Permanent Judge of the Calcutta High Court on March 14, 2016. Previously, he was empanelled as a Senior State Government Advocate for West Bengal. He began his career as a journalist before joining the legal practise, after completing his law degree from Delhi University.
The ceremony was presided over by the Chief Justice, Justice TS Sivagnanam, and the gathering was addressed by Senior members of the bar, such as Advocate General, S.N. Mookherjee, who recalled his time as Justice Talukdar’s batchmate in Presidency University, Calcutta.
Further addresses were delivered by ASG Billwadal Bhattacharya, as well as the Presidents of the Incorporated Law Society, High Court Bar Association, and the Bar Library Club.
The Calcutta High Court has commenced live-streaming of court proceedings from its Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri.
The commencement ceremony was presided over by Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam who expressed his pride and joy in noting that after the commencement of live-streaming proceedings from the four Benches at Jalpaiguri, the total number of live-streamed Courts at Calcutta High Court would reach 23, making it the highest number of courts that are being live-streamed among all High Courts in India.
Chief Justice Sivagnanam noted several advantages in live-streaming court proceedings, and shared his thoughts on how there will be multiple beneficiaries among the various stakeholders, if court-proceedings are live streamed. He said:
“The first beneficiary will be the litigant. Due to the nature of the terrain all over the State of WB, many of the times the litigants would not be able to attend court in-person to watch the proceedings, either out of curiosity, or anxiety, but through live-streaming, if they can afford a smartphone, they may be able to watch these proceedings which would give a lot of satisfaction. They may not understand nuances of law, but it gives them a great feeling to watch it. Secondly, the lawyers. In fact, I was told that lawyers often re-run the YouTube video of court proceedings and note the queries of the court in order to answer them. In fact, on our division bench, I was hearing a matter, and the senior advocate appearing from Delhi, was briefed by sending a clip of the queries posed by the Court. So live-streaming is also helping lawyers prepare for court better.”
The Calcutta High Court has passed a direction for central armed forces to remain in the State for a period of ten days after declaration of results in the West Bengal Panchayat Elections 2023, on the 12th of July.
Upon noting the submissions advanced by Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar for the applicant, highlighting the previous incidents of post-poll violence in West Bengal, which lead to mass casualties, a division-bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Uday Kumar ordered:
“Though it may not be right for a court to predict any violence during the ensuing elections, the applicant's apprehension cannot be brushed aside, given the past experience. We are only concerned with protection of the public at large and if such violence takes place, it would affect the public. There are chances of post poll violence in victory processions of winning candidates, etc. Therefore, let the Central forces be deployed for 10 more days after the declaration of results.”
The Calcutta High Court had reserved its judgment in an appeal preferred by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), against a single bench order which set aside appointment of observers and other related directions issued by the Commission “to protect human rights” in the course of the 2023 Panchayat Elections.
The matter was heard by a division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya.
Senior Advocate Aman Lekhi appearing for NHRC contended that scope of duties of the ‘observers’ appointed by the NHRC and those appointed by the State Election Commission (SEC) under Section 134 of the WB Panchayat Election Act are 'fundamentally distinct'.
He submitted there is no "political agenda" behind appointment of NHRC observers and that observes will only be deputed in areas where violations of Human Rights have taken place, or are potentially vulnerable against the violation of human rights. He said the observers would not interfere with the duties of the SEC or interdict the election process in any way.