- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Calcutta High Court
- /
- Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest:...
Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: November 2024
Srinjoy Das
10 Dec 2024 11:52 AM IST
NOMINAL INDEXSMT SONIA DHIR AND ANR. VS PRESTAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LIMITED Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 229ASHUNATH BHATTACHARJEE VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 230STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS VS REBEKA KHATUN MOLLA ALIAS REBEKA MOLLA AND ORS Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 231Gautam Ray Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 232Bally...
NOMINAL INDEX
SMT SONIA DHIR AND ANR. VS PRESTAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LIMITED Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 229
ASHUNATH BHATTACHARJEE VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 230
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS VS REBEKA KHATUN MOLLA ALIAS REBEKA MOLLA AND ORS Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 231
Gautam Ray Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 232
Bally Sarvajanik Chath Puja Samity & Ors Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 233
Kailash Vijayvargiya Versus The State of West Bengal and Another Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 234
PRAJNA PAROMITA SEN AND ANR. VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 235
Rajib Kumar Jha Versus Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 236
ABDUL KALIM @ AZAD @ ABDUL KALAM VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 237
MINTECH GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 238
Rahul Amin @ Rahul Haque -Vs- The State of West Bengal Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 239
SANDIP GHOSH VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 240
Debal Banerjee @ Debdal Banerjee @ Debdulal Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 241
Biswanath Murmu-Vs-The State of West Bengal Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 242
Gopal Adhikary & Ors. -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 243
Rajesh Kewat Managing Director, Fast Info Legal Services Private Limited Versus The State of West Bengal & Another Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 244
Dr. Shiuli Mukherjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 245
Arun Uday Paul Chowdhury -Vs-The State of West Bengal & Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 246
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, Kolkata Vs M/S. Delta Dealers Private Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 247
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 2 Kolkata Vs Gpt Sons Pvt Ltd Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 248
Mitadru Sau Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 249
Sagari Hembram -vs- State of West Bengal & another Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 250
Saddam Hossain Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 251
In the matter of : Dr. Subires Bhattacharya @ Subiresh Bhattacharjee V. The Central Bureau of Investigation and connected matters Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 252
Kuntal Ghosh v/s. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 253
Suman Talukder Vs. Namita Paul Talukder Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 254
X v State of West Bengal Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 255
Santanu Banerjee v/s Enforcement Directorate Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 256
Tata Steel Limited (Hooghly Met Coke Division) Haldia Contractors' Mazdoor Sangh and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 257
Sri Barun Mukherjee and Another Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 258
Smt. Sunita Das Versus State of West Bengal & Another Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 259
Sunil Harsh v State of West Bengal Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 260
ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS
Case Title: SMT SONIA DHIR AND ANR. VS PRESTAR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LIMITED
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 229
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya affirmed that when two or more contracts are so intertwined with each other so as to prejudice the parties should separate arbitrations be held, a composite reference of both the contracts can be made to the Arbitrator.
The present application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arises out of a dispute pertaining to two different agreements between the parties. The first agreement, being a leave and licence agreement, was entered into between the petitioner no.2, a company, and the respondent with regard to a particular property.
The second agreement, which is a service agreement, was also entered into on the same day i.e., on July 18, 2023 between the respondent and the petitioner no.1, who is the wife of one of the erstwhile directors of the petitioner no.2 and also herself a director of the petitioner no.2 company.
Case: ASHUNATH BHATTACHARJEE VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 230
The Calcutta High Court has observed that a police official cohabiting with another person during the presence of their spouse is "unbecoming of their status."
The court was dealing with a prayer for anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 307, 498A, 406 IPC against a police officer who was allegedly in a relationship with a practising advocate. Both parties were allegedly married to separate spouses and had children from their respective marriages. It was argued by the petitioner that since their relationship soured, he was falsely accused by the complainant.
Case: STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS VS REBEKA KHATUN MOLLA ALIAS REBEKA MOLLA AND ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 231
The Calcutta High Court division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya has upheld a single bench's order directing a CBI probe into allegations of custodial torture by the accused arrested for allegedly threatening Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee's daughter.
Earlier, a single bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj had ordered a CBI probe into the allegations.
Case: Gautam Ray Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 232
The Calcutta High Court has directed the state to provide police protection to the puja committee conducting Jagadhatri Puja at Sarkar Para Durga Mandir, in a plea by the committee seeking necessary permissions and protections for organising the puja.
A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta held:
"As the petitioner had been holding the said Jagadhatri Puja at the said venue admittedly for sometime and they have obtained all other necessary permissions for this year, there should not be any impediment upon them to hold the said Jagadhatri Puja this year. In view of the above, let the local police make all necessary arrangements in and around the venue for the petitioner to celebrate and holding Jagadhatri Puja at the said venue. The Officer-in-Charge of the local Police Station shall ensure that no breach of peace takes place and would deploy adequate number of police personnel for such purpose."
Case: Bally Sarvajanik Chath Puja Samity & Ors Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 233
The Calcutta High Court has declined an intervention application by the owner of a property seeking to recall the court's earlier order allowing the usage of a ghat (river bank) situated on the premises of the property for the celebration of Chhath puja by people in the area.
A single bench of Justice Rai Chattopadhyay held:
"The applicants, thus, neither can be called a diligent litigant to be eligible for an equitable remedy, nor can be held to have been able to bring on record with sufficient precision, that fraud in accordance with law, has been committed upon them by the writ petitioner. The writ petition has already been disposed of. The applicants would have other remedies available, if adversely affected by the order of the Court. So far as recall of the order of the Court is concerned, within the limited scope of the existing and prevalent laws as regards the same, the present applications would not be maintainable."
Case: Kailash Vijayvargiya Versus The State of West Bengal and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 234
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against BJP leader Kailash Vijayvargiya, accused under Sections 504/505(1)(b)/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for allegedly misleading posts regarding workers belonging to the ruling party posted on his X (Twitter) account.
It was alleged by the State that Vijayvargiya had shared a fake video of women being assaulted on his X handle and claimed that the ruling party workers were behind the assault. It was argued that this post led to widespread disruption of peace in the area.
Case: PRAJNA PAROMITA SEN AND ANR. VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 235
The Calcutta High Court on Friday observed that the use of loudspeakers and blocking of roads outside a specially-abled children's school for celebrating Jadadhatri puja, showed that the "puja committee thinks they are bigger than the deity itself."
A division bench of CJ TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya orally remarked:
There is a school for specially-abled children. Your puja committee must show concern for the neighbourhood. Particularly the children who are differently abled. Your committee thinks they are bigger than the god. Instead of having the gods idol, we'll have the pictures of your committee members. The president thinks he's bigger than the deity. This is all ego. You should have some regard for the people of the locality.
Case: Rajib Kumar Jha Versus Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 236
The Calcutta High Court declined to stay the release of a movie titled "The Diary of West Bengal" in a plea seeking to halt its release on the grounds of the movie containing communal undertones. The movie depicts events around the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation war.
A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya earlier declined to grant urgent relief, and at the present hearing dismissed the plea as infructuous.
Case: ABDUL KALIM @ AZAD @ ABDUL KALAM VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 237
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to a Bangladeshi national, who was arrested in 2016, on the suspicion of being associated with the banned terrorist organisation Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB).
A division bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Gaurang Kanth allowed the bail application moved by Abdul Kalim alias Azad.
Case Title: MINTECH GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED – CEMENTDIVISION
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 238
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya affirmed that there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that if there is a perversity in the award insofar as the non-consideration of vital evidence is concerned, the same tantamounts to violation of the fundamental policy of Indian Law as well as gives rise to a patent illegality, which is a sufficient ground for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Case: Rahul Amin @ Rahul Haque -Vs- The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 239
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction of an accused who was sentenced under Section 363 of the IPC for the offence of kidnapping a 15-year-old girl who was returning from school with her father.
On her way home, she passed a Maruti car parked on the road. The accused who was sitting inside the car with other men asked his daughter to stop and come inside the car. When she refused, they forced her inside and drove to Burdwan.
The father stated that the accused used to work with the complainant's brother as a laborer and would often visit their house and was thus acquainted with the members of their family.
In upholding the conviction, but releasing the accused due to time already served, a single bench of Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay held:
The consent of the victim is immaterial and the subsisting family bond cannot be an excuse for an escape of the victim from the parental custody at the pretext or behest of pleasant and affable relationship or to justify an act of removing a minor from the custody of her legal guardian and further does not absolve the appellant from being indicted of the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case: SANDIP GHOSH VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 240
The Calcutta High Court has declined to hear a plea for bail moved by former principal of RG Kar Medical College and Hospital Sandip Ghosh, who has been arrested by the CBI in connection with alleged financial irregularities at the college, as well as the rape and murder of a trainee doctor on the college campus.
A single bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh directed Ghosh to approach the trial court seeking bail.
Case: Debal Banerjee @ Debdal Banerjee @ Debdulal Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 241
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against a man who was found in a "compromising position" at a brothel. Petitioner, was charged under the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 (in short Act of 1956).
In quashing the case, a single bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held:
From the record it appears that there is no material on record even after completion of investigation, to demonstrate that the victim was procured or any attempt was made to procure the victim for the prostitution by the present petitioner/customer.
Case: Biswanath Murmu-Vs-The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 242
The Calcutta High Court has held that when an adult victim knowingly and willingly consented to sexual relations with a man, the man cannot later be held guilty for committing the offence of rape on the pretext of marriage.
A single bench of Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay held:
The relationship between the parties was indubitably consensual. The victim lady being an adult was aware of the consequences of such relationship and denial on the part of the appellant to marry her would entail wide ramification.The victim being an adult lady could not have been a prey to the promise to marry concept foregoing her knowledge of subsequent possibilities, probabilities and eventualities if such promise was not acted upon.
Calcutta High Court Allows Protest March Against Alleged Atrocities Faced By Hindus In Bangladesh
Case: Gopal Adhikary & Ors. -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 243
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a protest march against the alleged atrocities faced by members of the Hindu community in ethnic violence which has broken out across Bangladesh.
A single bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh allowed the protest, which is scheduled to lead up to the Bangladesh High Commission, when a delegation of a few members will be meeting the High Commissioner to share concerns over the hardships faced by Hindus in Bangladesh.
Case: Rajesh Kewat Managing Director, Fast Info Legal Services Private Limited Versus The State of West Bengal & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 244
The Calcutta High Court has declined to quash a criminal case against the proprietors of a 'legal services' online company who allegedly duped a lady who had been a victim of a credit card scam and had approached them through Google to help her report the same.
A single bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held:
It appears that under the banner of one Website, namely, https://www.onlinelegalindia.com, the said company has cheated so many persons in the manner as cheated the Opposite Party No. 2. The complainant tried to contact the company further but they did not agree to talk with her and further used slang languages to her. She has been duped by the said company...Caller stated that they have their own cyber cell, where they will register the FIR and for that they will charge a sum of Rs. 1,179/-. The said amount has been paid from her Bank Account, but, despite assurance, neither copy of FIR was provided to her nor any action has been taken by them. No service was provided to her for what they have charged for.
Case: Dr. Shiuli Mukherjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 245
The Calcutta High Court has declined to quash a case against the owner of a nursing home filed by the father of a lady suffering from COVID-19, who allegedly passed away due to treatment by a "fake doctor."
A single bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held:
"It is true that the petitioner in this application has made a conscious effort to distance herself from the other accused Sudipto Sardar by saying that due to Government notification and also due to an unprecedented situation resulted out of COVID 19 pandemic, she was not in a position to verify the genuineness of the documents produced by the other accused but such plea is certainly a disputed question of fact, specially when the fake doctor has signed in the death certificate of the victim disclosing himself as a resident medical officer. All these issues are to be considered and decided during trial."
Case: Arun Uday Paul Chowdhury -Vs-The State of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 246
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a rally by the Bharatiya Janata Party in Kolkata's Howrah area, after permission had been refused by the police authorities.
A single bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh allowed permission for the rally, but expressed string exception over the fact that it had been scheduled to be held along a stretch of "narrow road" which was only 20 metres wide.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, Kolkata Vs M/S. Delta Dealers Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 247
The Calcutta High Court has held that it cannot indulge in factual examination of the material produced or not produced by an assessee-company to explain the share capital and premium received by it, in an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.
A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya thus refused to interfere with an ITAT order which deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer towards “unexplained” share capital and share premium of Rs.15,51,00,000/- under Section 68.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 2 Kolkata Vs Gpt Sons Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 248
The Calcutta High Court has refused to apply Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to a scrutiny notice issued in an amalgamating company's name, despite the Assessing Officer being aware about the company's amalgamation.
Section 292-B provides that no notice or assessment or any proceedings can be deemed to be invalid merely for the reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such notice, assessment or other proceedings.
In the case at hand, a division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that “the fact of amalgamation was well within the knowledge of the assessing officer.”
Case: Mitadru Sau Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 249
The Calcutta High Court has directed the authorities to consider re-assessing a candidate who appeared for the NEET (UG) 2024 exam, and sought to be eligible under the PwD category.
A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta heard the candidate's plea to set aside the disability certificate issued by the Designated Disability NEET Screening Centre, IPGME&R, Kolkata which assessed the petitioner's disability at 31%, and directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner's disability assessment or consider the assessment under the petitioner's UDID card.
Case: Sagari Hembram -vs- State of West Bengal & another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 250
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against a man's second wife, under various sections of the IPC including Section 498A (cruelty), Section 494, 406 and Section 506, as well as under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by his first wife.
Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul quashed the charges and held: "Offence alleged under Section 494 of IPC is applicable to the person who has married for the second time, during the life time of his spouse in a valid marriage. none of the offences alleged in the said complaint are applicable in respect of the petitioner who admittedly is not the relative of the husband of the complainant."
Case: Saddam Hossain Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 251
The Calcutta High Court has denied relief to a NEET candidate belonging to the EWS category who sought to migrate from JIS Medical college, which is a private medical college, to a government medical college.
It was submitted by the petitioner that he belongs to an extremely economically backward section of society and that his EWS rank in the NEET UG exam was enough to secure him admission to a government college. However, it was stated that when he tried to participate in the admission process, he was to receive an OTP from the admission portal, but the OTP never came.
After this, the petitioner stated that he contacted the helpline and was asked to participate in the second round of counselling. When he sought a hearing, the petitioner was told that he could take admission in a private medical college, and when a vacancy arose, he could seek migration to a government college.
In denying the plea of the petitioner, a division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee held:
"The photostat copy of the log obtained from the server of the National Informatics Centre (NIC), as annexed at page 15 of the A/O filed by the respondent nos. 3 to 5 would reveal that though the first round of counselling commenced from 25.07.2023, the appellant fetched the OTP only once and that too on the last date of the said counselling, i.e., on 28.07.2023. Records further reveal that having allegedly failed to obtain the OTP on 28.07.2023, the first representation was submitted about two months thereafter on 26.09.2023, i.e., after publication of the result of the Online Stray Round on 25.09.2023."
Case: In the matter of : Dr. Subires Bhattacharya @ Subiresh Bhattacharjee V. The Central Bureau of Investigation and connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 252
The Calcutta High Court has delivered a split verdict on the bail pleas of Partha Chatterjee, former State Education Minister, and four others, accused in the infamous cash for jobs recruitment scam case.
While the division bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray was considering bail pleas by the accused, Justice Banerjee granted bail to all accused, while Justice Sinha Ray denied bail to Chatterjee, and four other officials from the education department, namely Subiresh Bhattacharjee, Kalyanmoy Gangopadhyay, Ashok Saha and Shanti Prasad Sinha.
Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To Suspended TMC Leader Kuntal Ghosh In Recruitment Scam Case
Case: Kuntal Ghosh v/s. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 253
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to suspended Trinamool Congress youth leader Kuntal Ghosh in the cash-for-jobs recruitment scam case being investigated by the CBI and ED.
While Justice Suvra Ghosh granted bail to the accused subject to a bond of Rs 10 lakhs, he will remain in custody in another case being investigated by the CBI.
Case: Suman Talukder Vs. Namita Paul Talukder
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 254
The Calcutta High Court has observed that it is high time that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is recognised as a ground for divorce under Indian law, by reading it into the grounds of cruelty or desertion, like it is in the UK.
A division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar held:
It transpires from the consistent conduct and lack of interest of the wife that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down. Although irretrievable breakdown is per se not a ground for divorce as yet in Indian Law, the jurisprudence in certain other countries such as the United Kingdom incorporate the component of irretrievable breakdown as an aspect of cruelty, affording a ground of divorce in such cases.
Case: X v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 255
The Calcutta High Court has allowed an infertile couple to avail of the facility of Assistive Reproductive Techniques (ART) to aid them in conceiving a child, even though the husband's age at 58 years, was above the statutory limit prescribed under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Rules, 2022.
Justice Amrita Sinha held: In the instant case, the woman falls within the prescribed age limit but the man is over aged. Due to over age of the husband, the clinic is refusing to provide the service to the couple. The clinic or the bank does not have any authority to refuse service if a single partner of a married couple intends to avail the service. Had the wife approached the clinic individually, the clinic could not have refused to provide ARTS to her. Here, since the parties are in a cordial relationship, they approached the clinic jointly as commissioning couple.
Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To Suspended TMC Youth Vice-President In Recruitment Scam Case
Case: Santanu Banerjee v/s Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 256
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to former Trinamool Congress youth leader Santanu Banerjee, who was being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate in the multi-crore cash for jobs recruitment scam.
Banerjee was one of the many key figures who were arrested by the ED in connection with the scam.
In an order granting him bail, subject to stringent conditions, Justice Suvra Ghosh held:
"It is not in dispute that he is a first-time offender and has not been convicted of any offence earlier. Keeping in view the voluminous evidence to be considered by the learned Trial Court, chance of conclusion of trial within the time frame for incarceration during trial laid down in section 479 is bleak. Rejecting the prayer of the petitioner at this stage and granting him liberty to renew his prayer upon completion of the said time frame shall serve no purpose at all."
Case: Tata Steel Limited (Hooghly Met Coke Division) Haldia Contractors' Mazdoor Sangh and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 257
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a notification by the State of West Bengal through which the state government sought to regulate employment of persons to private industrial establishments.
Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur held: "Any restriction on a trade or business is unreasonable if it is arbitrary or drastic and has no relation to, or goes much more than, the objective of the law which seeks to impose it. The object of Article 19(1)(g) is that the freedom of carrying on a profession should be enjoyed by the citizen to the fullest possible extent without putting “shackles” of avoidable cobwebs of Rules and Regulations putting restrictions in the enjoyment of such freedoms."
Case: Sri Barun Mukherjee and Another Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 258
The Calcutta High Court has held that when a driver's license is invalid on the day of an accident, then it would be a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance agreement by the owner of the offending vehicle, who allowed the driver to drive the vehicle without a valid license.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held: "Furthermore, when the driving licence is not valid on the date of accident, it constitutes a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the owner of the offending vehicle by allowing such driver to drive the vehicle without valid licence."\
Case: Smt. Sunita Das Versus State of West Bengal & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 259
The Calcutta High Court has held that strict proof of marriage is not required while claiming maintenance under section 125 CrPC for a couple who had been living as husband and wife for a prolonged period of time.
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held: "Where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonable long period of time, strict proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 strict proof of marriage is not required. Wife has to prove prima facie case of marriage so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of the maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973."
Case: Sunil Harsh v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 260
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a protest march to be scheduled tomorrow, against the alleged atrocities faced by 'sanatani Hindus' in West Bengal.
Justice Tirthankar Ghosh stated that a formal order would be passed tomorrow morning after the exact details of the gathering were furnished by the organisers, but orally allowed them to go ahead with the program, and directed them to follow the instructions of the State administration if their rally stage would be set up in the middle of the road.
The judge also directed that the timings of the rally be reduced to between 2pm to 6pm instead of 12pm to 6:30pm.
