- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Calcutta High Court
- /
- Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest:...
Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: December 2024
Srinjoy Das
31 Dec 2024 2:50 PM IST
Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To Former TMC Aide Ayan Sil In Recruitment Scam CaseCase: Ayan Sil v/s. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 261The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to former TMC leader Santanu Banerjee's aide Ayan Sil in connection with the infamous cash-for-jobs recruitment scam, in which high ranking Trinamool Congress leaders...
Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To Former TMC Aide Ayan Sil In Recruitment Scam Case
Case: Ayan Sil v/s. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 261
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to former TMC leader Santanu Banerjee's aide Ayan Sil in connection with the infamous cash-for-jobs recruitment scam, in which high ranking Trinamool Congress leaders were being probed by the ED and CBI.
Justice Suvra Ghosh while allowing Sil's bail plea noted that many similarly placed accused, including Banerjee himself had also been granted bail by the High Court, and that there was no scope for the trial to commence in the foreseeable future.
Case: LOB DAS VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANOTHER.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 262
The Calcutta High Court has allowed an accused in a rape case to undergo a paternity test in order to prove his claim that he had "non-access" to the alleged victim who claimed to have been raped by him and subsequently become pregnant.
Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul relied on the Supreme Court case of Dipanwita Roy vs. Ronobroto Roy and held:
"In the present case, there is admittedly no marriage between the parties. The victim girl claims the child to be that of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner denying the paternity of the child has claimed non access to the relationship. Thus, when “non-access” is claimed in such a relationship, it is the right of the accused to have the same proved by way of evidence available/possible."
Case: DR. SWAPAN DASGUPTA AND ANR VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 263
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday allowed permission for a rally to go ahead in Kolkata, protesting against the alleged atrocities taking place against Hindus in Bangladesh on 5th December.
While granting permission for the rally, Justice Tirthankar Ghosh orally warned the petitioners' counsel that no vandalism or attacks should take place against public property or public servants at the protests. The judge stated that in case there was any outbreak of violence, the court would henceforth impose a bond condition before allowing permission for such rallies.
Case: MR. PROJAY SINGHA ROY VS RAJASTHAN FERTILIZERS & CHEMICAL CORPORATION LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 264
On 22.11.2024, a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta comprising of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Gaurang Kanth, while dismissing an appeal from a contempt petition filed against the partners of M/s Bengal Industrial Corporation by Rajasthan Fertilisers & Chemical Corporation Limited held “contempt proceeding has been instituted to enforce an undertaking given by the contemnors in GA/2/2022. Enforcement of an undertaking given by a litigant would continue notwithstanding disposal of a matter till the undertaking is discharged.”
Case: MADHUMITA BIBI VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 265
The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday emphasised the need for relevant training to be imparted to police officers. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh expressed surprise at the fact that police in the state were behaving in a "customary manner" and not adapting themselves with the changing times.
The Court was dealing with a case of police inaction, brought by a litigant who claimed embezzlement of funds at a cooperative society. The petitioner claimed that when they discovered the documents which pointed to the embezzlement, she was assaulted.
Case: SADHAN DALUI & ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 266
The Calcutta High Court has overturned the order of the railway tribunal and directed the payment of Rs 8 lakhs along with interest, to the kin of a man who died after falling from a moving train in 2001.
Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul held: The original ticket produced and the number of the ticket being the same as the number given in the claim application prima facie proves that the victim in this was a bonafide passenger of the Indian Railways. The D.P. memo and its entries relating to the opinion of the M.O., injuries noted in the P.M. Report of O/C Bantra and the FIR of the U.D. Case all show that the death of the victim was due to accidental falling from a train carrying passengers.
Case: Sujay Krishna Bhadra v/s. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 267
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to recruitment scam accused Sujay Krishna Bhadra. Bhadra's firm was linked with transfer of proceeds of crime to M/S Leaps & Bounds Pvt Ltd, a company linked with AITC MP Abhishek Banerjee.
Justice Suvra Ghosh granted bail and held: The case essentially hinges on the statement of the petitioner and the co-accused and recovery made pursuant to the same. The prosecution has in fact commenced with the statement of Tapas Kumar Mondal and Kuntal Ghosh under section 50 of the PMLA. It is trite law that prosecution cannot commence with the statement of a co-accused under section 50 of the PMLA.
Case: Dulal Chandra Barman -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 268
A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Saugata Bhattacharyya, Justice, while deciding a writ petition held that a retired government employee is entitled to receive retiral benefits (including pension) in a timely manner, even when there is a pending dispute regarding alleged excess salary drawn during the service period.
Case: The State of West Bengal & Anr. -Versus- Sri Kali Sadhan Bhattacharjee @ Bhattacharyya & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 269
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Prasenjit Biswas, while deciding an appeal held that recovery of alleged excess payments made to a retired employee, without fraud or misrepresentation on their part, is impermissible.
Case: Kunal Gupta v/s. Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 270
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to a man being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA for allegedly running a fake call centre and promising services to victims in exchange for money, which were never delivered. The alleged victims were from countries such as the US, UK, Germany, Australia, etc.
Justice Suvra Ghosh held: The charge sheet of the scheduled offence does not name the victims who are undoubtedly the best persons to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. A constitutional Court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-under trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed.
Case: SK. OSI VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 271
The Calcutta High Court on Monday stressed upon state advocates that in all cases of drinking and driving, where an accident had occurred, the state must add Section 304(II) IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) as a charge against the accused, instead of Section 304(I) for merely reckless driving.
Justice Tirthankar Ghosh stated: "Normal reckless driving S,304(I) is okay....SC has settled the law. Person who is driving must know that he cannot drive after drinking. That fact is not recklessness. In normal course of driving recklessness can happen also. I am giving you the liberty to add the sections before the ACJM."
Case Title: BANKAT GARODIA VS ADITYO PODDAR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 272
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an order passed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act on the basis of an arbitration clause cannot be recalled merely on the ground that reply given to a notice under section 21 was suppressed.
Case: SRI NIRMAL KANODIA & ORS. Vs UMADEVI AGARWALLA & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 273
Justice Sugato Majumdar of the High Court at Calcutta, while dismissing an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908, ruled “Unexplained lethargy and long delay in production of document which is otherwise available cannot be cured at this belated stage. Therefore, it is not a fit case where the instant application should be allowed.”
Case: PABITRA ADAK & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 274
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case initiated by a wife against her husband under Section 498A of the IPC, accusing him of cruelty towards her, three years after leaving their matrimonial home. While the wife had left the husband's house in 2020, she filed a complaint accusing him of cruelty in 2023.
Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul held: The allegations in both the cases arise out of the matrimonial dispute between the parties. It is further seen that since the year 2020, when she filed the first case, the complainant has left her matrimonial home and has now after almost three years initiated the present case on 13.04.2023. Accordingly in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law... the case is hereby quashed.
Case: Saumen Kumar Bhattacharjya Versus State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 275
The division bench in the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held that the state is not entitled to recover excess amount paid to a retired officer if that amount was paid to the employee due to mistake on the state's part.
Case: Sri Kartick Chandra Barik Vs. State of West Bengal & Others.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 276
A division bench of Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Debangsu Basak & Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the casual workers who were not appointed against a valid sanctioned post cannot be appointed on a regular post.
Case: Smt. Lachhmina Devi & Anr. -Vs- Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 277
The Calcutta High Court has held that in cases for providing compassionate employment, it is 'reprehensible' to consider the source of inception of a child's birth and discriminate against those who may have been born from a void marriage.
Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay held: "The objective to grant compassionate appointment to redress financial constraints occasioned in a family in the event of the death of the bread earner ensures a means of sufficiency to assuage abrupt crisis and indigence, which cannot be refused ambiguously and unjustifiably on the basis of a circular which is unequivocally unconstitutional to judge a child's entitlement to an appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of its descent."
Case: Sudip Pal Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 278
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC initiated by tenants against the purchaser of a property who had asked the tenants to vacate the premises or face eviction.
Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul held: It is for the respondent no. 2/complainant Garg to file a civil suit. Initiation of the criminal process for oblique purposes, is bad in law and amounts to abuse of process of law. From the materials in the case diary it appears that admittedly there was just one occasion when the petitioner/owner allegedly asked the complainant/tenant to leave the premises. It was after this “one” alleged threat of eviction, the present case has been initiated.
Case: SHERU SONKAR VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 279
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday declined to allow a protest by a social welfare organisation seeking to agitate rights of tribal people, particularly the Santhali community.
The organisation had sought to undertake a 'rail and road roko' protest by blocking railways and national highways on 20th December to get the state government to give into their demands such as inter alia establishment of a Santhali education board.
Case: Jagannath Prasad Gupta & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 280
The Calcutta High Court has held that the right of eminent domain exercised by a state for the larger public interest would prevail over the constitutional right to property of private landowners under Article 300A of the Constitution.
While allowing the authorities to acquire the petitioner's premises for metro railway construction, Justice Aniruddha Roy held:
The right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution shall have to be read by including the provisions laid down under Article 31A of the Constitution of India and not in exclusion thereof. The sovereign power vested in the State to take private property for public use stands concluded with payment of just compensation to the land looser. A superior right to apply private property for public use. A superior right inherent in society and exercised by the sovereign power or upon delegation from it, whereby the subject matter of rights of property may be taken from the owner and appropriated for the general welfare of the society for a public purpose.
Case: Ashok Sharma v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 281
The Calcutta High Court has held that regulatory measures under the Goods and Services Tax Act cannot be labeled as violative of an assessee's right to trade/ business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj reasoned that such regulatory measures are “necessary to ensure compliance and prevent tax evasion”.
Case: Pankaj Mukherjee Vs. Rina Mukherjee nee Biswas
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 282
The Calcutta High Court has held that a "quarrel" between husband and wife would be attributed to both parties and that it would be a part of the normal "wear and tear" of marital life, and could not be grounds to allow divorce on the ground of cruelty.
A division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar held:
"The term “quarrel”, by its very definition, involves two parties. As such, fault cannot be attributed solely to one of the parties for an altercation or quarrel. Thus, the consistent case of P.W.2 in his cross-examination that the spouses quarrelled between themselves is not sufficient to attribute any cruelty to the respondent-wife...the exact role of either of the spouses in such altercations cannot be fixed. Thus, the only so-called corroborative evidence of the plaint case is no evidence of cruelty at all but might at best indicate towards the natural wear and tear of married life."
Case Title: Smt. Rita Banerjee & Anr. Versus S.E. Builders & Realtors Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 283
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Krishna Rao has observed that the remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is in addition to the remedies available under other special statutes and the availability of alternative remedies is not a bar to the entertaining of a petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. But once elected, then the other remedy will not lie in respect of the same dispute.
Case: Mr. Dhiraj Guin Vs. Mrs. Tanusree Majumder
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 284
The Calcutta High Court has held that a wife imposing her friends and family on her husband by having them put up at his residence without his willingness would amount to cruelty.
A division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar held:
The mother of the respondent (wife) would not have lived at the Kolaghat residence of the appellant (husband) if he extorted her pension or the respondent's earned money. In any event, the continued presence of Mousumi Paul (friend) and others of her family at the residence of the husband despite his objection and discomfort on such count is borne out by the records.
Case: Shyamchand Mondal Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 285
The Calcutta High Court has held that bail is an essential element of the criminal justice system as it affords a right to a fair trial to the accused in a criminal case.
Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul made these observations in a plea by a man accused under the POCSO act, against an order cancelling his bail issued by the trial court. She said:
"Bail is a Rule and Jail is an exception. This is in line with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty to all citizens of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the 'right to life and personal liberty' to every individual and no one should be deprived of it except according to the procedure established by law. It guarantees the fundamental right to live with human dignity and personal liberty."
Case: Ambujaksha Mahanti Versus Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 286
Calcutta High Court: In 2020, a Division Bench had denied pension benefits to an IIM Calcutta faculty member for failing to opt into the new GPF-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme. However, a Division Bench of Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Ajay Kumar Gupta allowed a review petition against this judgement. The bench held that the relevant pension rules automatically covered employees who did not opt out. It explained that the earlier division bench erred in holding that the employee had to explicitly opt-in; since, it contradicted both the memorandum's provisions and the case of Union of India v. S.L. Verma.
Case: The State of West Bengal & ors. Vs. Joint Platform of Doctors & anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 287
The Calcutta High Court has upheld a single judge order allowing a peaceful sit-in demonstration by the joint forum for doctors, against the brutal rape and murder of a trainee doctor at Kolkata's RG Kar medical college and Hospital.
A division bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Hiranmay Bhattacharya however, modified the single judge's order to the extent of reducing the total attendance at the protest to 100 doctors from the earlier sanctioned 250, due to the state's appeal that major roads would be blocked, causing difficulties to commuters during the busy Christmas period.
Case Title: Britannia Industries Limited vs. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 288
While reiterating that it shall not interfere in matters requiring fact-finding and adjudication, which fall squarely within the statutory domain, the Calcutta High Court advised the manufacturer/ supplier to exhaust the statutory remedies provided under the CGST Act, 2017 including submitting a detailed response to the SCN.
“The statutory framework under the CGST Act provides adequate mechanisms for addressing the petitioner's concerns, including responding to the SCN, participating in adjudication proceedings and availing appellate remedies if dissatisfied with the outcome”, observed a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj.
Case: Smt. Tanusree Das alias Tanushree Das -Vs- The State of West Bengal and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 290
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against a man accused by his sister-in-law of cruelty. Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul noted that the allegations in the FIR were vague and did not directly point at the petitioner. She said:
"As seen from the allegations as made in the written complaint by the opposite party no. 2, it appears that there is no specific allegation against the present petitioner, who is the married sister-in-law (nanad) of the defacto complainant. The allegations are general in nature and the petitioner herein has been named only in the cause title of the petition under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. There does not appear to be any specific allegations against her in the contents of the said application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C."
Calcutta High Court Grants Relief To NUJS VC, Upholds Dismissal Of Sexual Harassment Complaint
Case: X vs. Y & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 291
The Calcutta High Court has granted relief to the Vice-Chancellor of the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), Kolkata, in a case of sexual harassment filed by a faculty member.
A division bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Prasenjit Biswas found no credible evidence to support the claims and upheld the Local Complaint Committee's (LCC) decision to dismiss the complaint, citing the time limitations outlined in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Case: Mohan Kumar Halder -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 292
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty & Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee allowed the condonation of the deficiency in qualifying service for disbursement of pension, and held that the state failed to discharge its obligation within the mandatory time frame set by the Court.
Case: Dr. Subires Bhattacharya @ Subiresh Bhattacharjee Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 293
The Calcutta High Court has denied bail to former education minister Partha Chatterjee and four others, namely Subiresh Bhattacharjee, Kalyanmoy Gangopadhyay, Ashok Saha and Shanti Prasad Sinha in the infamous cash-for-jobs recruitment scam.
Earlier a division bench had delivered a split verdict on the bail applications of the petitioners.
On this occasion Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty denied the bail pleas and held:
"Parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail even at the stage when the bail application of a co-accused is allowed. The Court has to satisfy itself that, on consideration of more materials placed, further developments in the investigations and other different considerations, there are sufficient grounds for releasing the applicant on bail. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused persons, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. Court cannot proceed on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment, which again cannot pass muster under the law."
Case: Pradeep Kumar Naredi vs. Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 294
The Calcutta High Court recently reiterated that when the settlement applications were filed before the date on which the Finance Act 2021 did not come into effect, then taxpayers had vested right of preferring the application in absence of any statute prohibiting the said application.
The Division Bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya reiterated that retrospective legislation cannot affect the vested rights.
