Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: 23rd September To 29th September, 2024

The Calcutta High Court has called upon the POCSO court, Murshidabad to undertake a 'discreet enquiry' into the de-facto complainant and her daughter in a POCSO case for making a false complaint and also recording a false statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., thereby fabricating false evidence within the meaning of Section 192 of the IPC.

A division bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray held:

"As a result of such an act, three innocent persons being the petitioners herein, have spent almost one year behind the bar, and this fact, therefore, should also be taken into account by the Learned Judge. After enquiry, if the Learned Judge, Special POCSO Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad, finds that the defacto-complainant and/or her daughter (if major) are responsible for fabrication of false evidence under Section 192 of Indian Penal Code, 1860...he shall initiate criminal proceedings against them."

Enterprise Contracting With Assignee Of Govt Recognised Concessionaire For Developing “Infrastructural Facility” Can Claim Deduction U/S 80IA(4) Of Income Tax Act: Calcutta HC

Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Kolkata v. Bothra Shipping Services Private Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 216

The Calcutta High Court has held that an enterprise contracting with the assignee of a government-recognised concessionaire for infrastructure development can, based on facts and circumstances of the case, be given the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961.

The provision prescribes deductions in respect of enterprises engaged in infrastructure development. Sub-section (b) of the provision stipulates that the enterprise claiming deduction must have entered into an agreement with the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority or any other statutory body for (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility.

Compliance With Pre-Arbitration Formalities Not Mandatory; Can Be Waived By Consensus: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Jayashree Electromech Private Limited v. The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 217

The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that compliance of the pre-arbitration stages can be waived by consensus. The court observed that forcing the petitioner back to the rigmarole of pre-arbitration formalities would be an unnecessary and futile exercise.

Calcutta High Court Upholds Rs. 780 Crore Arbitration Award In Favour Of Reliance Infrastructure, Refuses Pre Award Interest

Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation vs. Reliance Infrastructure Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 218

The Calcutta High Court division bench, comprising Justice I. P. Mukerji and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury, has upheld the arbitral award amounting to Rs 780 crore in favour of Reliance Infrastructure Limited, with the exception of relief on pre-award interest and reduction in the rate of interest on bank guarantee. The court observed that the grant of pre-award interest was patently illegal, thereby, setting aside the interest awarded for the period prior to the award date.