Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: October 2024

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that non-payment of outstanding dues towards Outstanding Salary or Performance Bonus by a company does not amount to a Criminal breach of trust.

A single bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta relied on the Supreme Court case of Binod Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and Another, and held: "From the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that non-payment of outstanding dues towards Outstanding Salary or Performance Bonus by the company does not amount to Criminal breach of trust."

Accordingly, the Court quashed the case against the petitioners filed under Sections 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also set aside the summons issued against them.

S.107 CGST Act | Appellate Authority Cannot Suo Moto Enhance Tax Liability: Calcutta HC

Case title: Hriday Kumar Das Vs State of West Bengal

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 221

The Calcutta High Court recently set aside an order of the GST Appellate Authority, suo motu enhancing tax liability on an assessee, without following the procedure under Section 107(11) of the CGST/ WBGST Act.

Section 107 of the Act prescribes procedure for filing and adjudication of appeals by the Appellate Authority. Sub-section 11 thereof stipulates that the Appellate Authority can confirm, modify or annul the order appealed against, provided that an order enhancing any fee/ penalty/ fine shall not be passed unless the appellant is given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Bring West Bengal AIIMS At Par With AIIMS Delhi: Calcutta High Court Tells Centre Over Lack Of Post-Mortem Facilities

Case: The State of West Bengal -vs- Union of India & Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 222

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday commented that the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Kalyani, West Bengal, should be brought up to the standard of the AIIMS in Delhi or Rishikesh.

A single bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh made these observations while hearing a plea wherein he had directed the post-mortem of a minor girl who was raped and murdered in Bengal's Jaynagar area, to take place at the AIIMS hospital in Kalyani.

Arbitral Tribunal Acted With Patent Illegality, Against Indian Law In Awarding Reimbursement Of Service Tax Along With Interest: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: AB Enterprises Vs Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 223

The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed that award passed by Arbitral Tribunal was tainted with patent illegality and contravened the fundamental policy of Indian law. The award was challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (act). The court set aside the award in which South Eastern Railway (railway) was directed to reimburse the respondent towards service tax and interest.

Calcutta High Court Reaffirms Discretion Of Tendering Authority And Restricted Judicial Interference Upon Tender Qualifications

Case: M/s. Sharma Transport Agency and another vs. Damodar Valley Corporation and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 224

A Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court presided by Justice Shampa Sarkar dismissed a writ petition filed by a bidder challenging its rejection in the technical evaluation round by the tendering authority Damodar Valley Corporation ('DVC').

The subject tender dated 6.03.2024 was for empanelment of transportation agencies for evacuation of 40 LMT ash from ash ponds at DVC's Mejia Thermal Power Station when the petitioner was rejected owing to poor performance at DVC's Raghunathpur Thermal Power Station ('RTPS') wherein the petitioner had failed to perform their commitments and blamed a number of external factors.

Deduction U/S 80-IA Is Eligible For Industrial Undertakings Even If Infrastructural Development Is Performed With State's Nodal Agency: Calcutta HC

Case Title: PCIT vs. Bothra Shipping Services Private Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 225

The Calcutta High Court recently confirmed the deduction u/s 80IA(4) to an Infrastructural development company, regarding development of a mechanised port handling system by entering into an agreement with a nodal agency recognised by the Andhra Government.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya observed that deduction u/s 80IA(4) is legislated to promote industrial undertaking engaged in the infrastructural development, and therefore, its interpretation should advance the object of its introduction and should not frustrate it.

Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Prohibitory Orders, Allows Junior Doctors To Stage Protest Near 'Durga Puja Carnival'

Case: Joint Platform of Doctors & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 226

The Calcutta High Court has set aside prohibitory orders imposed under sections 163 (1) and (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, by the commissioner of police, Kolkata

These orders were imposed to prevent the assembly of junior doctors, from protesting the brutal rape and murder of a trainee doctor at RG Kar medical college and Hospital, near the area where the State's Durga Puja immersion carnival was slated to be held.

A single bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur passed the order after Chief Justice TS Sivagananam convened a special vacation bench upon a letter sent by the protesting doctors.

State Must Ensure Employee's Claiming Retiral Benefits Don't Succumb To 'Procedural Rigmarole': Calcutta High Court

Case: Biswa Bhusan Nandi Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 227

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that state employees should not be made to suffer due to procedure when they attempt to claim their retiral benefits.

A division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Sen stated:

Fairness and reasonableness are paramount issues for administrative action. As a model employer, the State must conduct itself with high probity and candour and ensure that its employees do not succumb to the procedural rigmarole particularly when the claim pertains to retirement benefits. Biswa had contested his claim since the year 2003 and had remained trapped in a purgatorial legal rigmarole, moving back and forth between the High Court and Tribunal.

The Calcutta High Court while dealing with an application for bail in an NDPS matter has allowed the application made by the petitioner, who sought default bail on the grounds that the chargesheet submitted against him was submitted without a forensic report, within the statutory limit of 180 days.

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

In view of the undisputed fact that in the present case the chargesheet, although filed within the period of 180 days, was not accompanied by the FSL report, and that the FSL report was filed as part of a supplementary charge-sheet filed beyond 180 days from the date of arrest of the petitioner and after he applied for statutory bail, we have to hold that upon expiry of 180 days, the petitioner became entitled to statutory bail/default bail, and the learned Trial Court erred in not extending that privilege to the petitioner.