NOMINAL INDEXMrinal Barik -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 145PEOPLE UNITED FOR BETTER LIVING IN CALCUTTA (PUBLIC) VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 146Dabur India Limited vs Dhruv Rathee And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 147Fiona Majumdar -vs- The Union of India & ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 148Calcutta High Court Directs Bengal Govt To Ensure...
NOMINAL INDEX
Mrinal Barik -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 145
PEOPLE UNITED FOR BETTER LIVING IN CALCUTTA (PUBLIC) VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 146
Dabur India Limited vs Dhruv Rathee And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 147
Fiona Majumdar -vs- The Union of India & ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 148
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 145
Case: Mrinal Barik -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors.
In a landmark development, the Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal government to ensure 1% reservation for all transgender persons in public employment in the State, in accordance with the Supreme Court's NALSA guidelines.
A single bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha held:
This Court, however, notes that in terms of paragraph 135 (3) in the National Legal Service Authority Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2014) reservation has not yet been made in the State for transgender persons. In those circumstances, this Court directs the Chief Secretary of the Government of West Bengal to ensure 1% reservation for the category of persons mentioned in the NALSA case in all public employment in the State.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 146
Case: PEOPLE UNITED FOR BETTER LIVING IN CALCUTTA (PUBLIC) VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
The Calcutta High Court has declined a plea by the “People United For Better Living in Kolkata (public)” (petitioners) seeking to halt all construction work for a metro station to be constructed in Kolkata's Maidan area due to the uprooting of around 700 trees in the area adjoining Victoria Memorial.
The petitioners sought to stop the Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL) from continuing its construction work and call for a review of the proposed project by independent experts and to examine and submit an expert report on the feasibility of transplanting the trees. The petitioners contended that from various news reports, they came to understand that 700 trees in the Maidan area are to be transplanted, 500 trees will have to be removed to make way for permanent structures and additionally 200 trees will be transplanted to allow movement of trailers and construction machinery like trains etc.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 147
Case Title: Dabur India Limited vs Dhruv Rathee And Ors.
In a recent development in the dispute between Dabur India Limited and Dhruv Rathee, Rathee has proposed to Calcutta High Court to settle the dispute amicably. The celebrated YouTube influencer, Rathee has agreed to either blur or replace the packaging resembling Dabur's 'Real' juice with generic fruit juice packaging in the disputed video without prejudice to his rights and contentions, including Rathee's right to freedom of speech and expression and to make fair comment.
The dispute before Justice Arindam Mukherjee of the Calcutta High Court centred around allegations by Dabur India Limited concerning references to its 'REAL' juice product in Rathee's video. The proceedings took a turn during a hearing on February 29, 2024, when Rathee proposed to blur images resembling Dabur's 'Real Juice' packet in the disputed video.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 148
Case: Fiona Majumdar -vs- The Union of India & ors.
The Calcutta High Court on Friday asked a candidate who had approached the Court for a re-test due to having lost around 1.5 hours of her exam as a result of a torn OMR sheet, to approach the Supreme Court.
A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta held:
It is an admitted fact that there was some damage in the OMR sheet for which the petitioner was not to be blamed. As has now been clarified by the learned counsel for the NTA that if an appropriate case is made out or if there is an order passed by a Court, the authorities can retest a candidate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court is in seisin of matters concerning compensation for loss of time during examination and has made certain findings in an application. The petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps.