Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: September 2024

Court On Its Own Motion Vs. XXXX(Victim Girl) & Anr Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 215

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Kolkata v. Bothra Shipping Services Private Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 216

Jayashree Electromech Private Limited v. The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 217

Damodar Valley Corporation vs. Reliance Infrastructure Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 218

ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS

Applicants Seeking Pandemic Relaxation For Limitation Under Section 34 Petition Cannot Simultaneously Claim IBC Moratorium Protection: Calcutta High Court

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.

No Prior Request Under Section 21 Needed For Section 11 Arbitration Applications: Calcutta High Court

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.

Interim Measures Under Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Justified If Applicant's Rights Are Not Protected From Third Parties: Calcutta High Court

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.

Allegations Of Fraudulent Signatures On Arbitration Agreements Must Be Decided By Arbitrator, Not Court Under Section 11: Calcutta High Court

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.

The Court Can't Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Re-interpret Contracts While Examining Patent Illegality : Calcutta High Court

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.

The Benefit Of Section 14 Of The Limitation Act Can Be Invoked For Exclusion Of Time In A Proceeding Under Section 34 Of The Arbitration And Conciliation Act: Calcutta High Court

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.

Court Cannot Legislate, Up To State Govt: Calcutta High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Implementation Of Advocates' Protection Law

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.

Arbitration Clause In Original Lease Deed Incorporated Into Deed Of Assignment When Deeds Are Interconnected And Consistent: Calcutta High Court

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.

Disputes Exceeding Rent Control Act Threshold Are Arbitrable If Lease Agreement Includes Arbitration Clause: Calcutta High Court

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.

Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To Trinamool Congress Leader Manik Bhattacharya In Recruitment Scam Case

Case: Manik Bhattacharya v State of West Bengal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 212