Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up, 04th March-10th March 2024

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that the mere silence of a party affecting the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud unless the circumstances of the case are such that it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak or unless the silence is in itself equivalent to speech.

A single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya referred to Section 17(2) of the Indian Contract Act, and held:

Fraud also takes within its fold active concealment of a fact by the party having knowledge of the fact or a promise made without the intention of performing it or any other act which is fitted to deceive. It is relevant that section 17(2) contemplates “active concealment” which points to deliberate non-disclosure with a pre-meditated intention to deceive the other party or induce him to enter into the contract.

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday transferred an investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) pertaining to the assault on Enforcement Directorate (ED) officers who had gone to Sandeshkhali, West Bengal to raid the residence of ration-scam accused Shahjahan Sheikh.

A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya set aside an earlier order constituting an SIT with members of the state police and directed the State to forthwith transfer all papers concerning the matter to the CBI, as well as the custody of prime accused Shahjahan Sheikh. It held:

It was made explicitly clear that the West Bengal State Police are restrained from proceeding with the investigation in the cases which have been registered by them. Despite such an order, the one case stood transferred to the CID, West Bengal who has issued notices dated 01.03.2024 under Section 91 and Section 160 CrPC. Thus, this act of the State Police would be sufficient to hold that the State Police are totally biased and every attempt is being made to delay the investigation in order to protect the accused who has been absconding for more than 50 days.

Calcutta High Court Allows Rectification Of Child's Birth Certificate To Replace Biological Father's Surname With Step-Father's Surname

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 63

Case: Arpita Chowdhury v. Nabadwip Municipality & Anr

The Calcutta High Court has recently allowed a plea moved by the mother of a minor child to replace the biological father's surname in the child's birth certificate with the name of the step-father.

It was submitted that the child was born from her first marriage and that after the dissolution of that marriage, she remarried and moved out of the marital house to live with her present husband, who had accepted the child, and whom the child had known as his father.

In directing the Municipal Corporation to re-issue the child's birth certificate, a single bench of Justice Amrita Sinha held:

One cannot be hyper-technical while dealing with personal issues with hardly any public law element involved. With the change in circumstances, the entry in respect of the father of the minor child has to be taken as improper and liable to be rectified and the records are to be corrected. If the necessary alteration is not done, then the child and her parents may have to face several embarrassing situations in the future. Every individual has the right to live with dignity and honour.

Right To Life & Equality Are Implicit Human Rights, Not Restricted To Citizens: Calcutta HC Orders Release Of Pakistani Man Imprisoned Despite Serving Sentence

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 64

Case: Monoyara Begum v Union of India

The Calcutta High Court has recently ordered the release of a Pakistani national who remained in prison, even after serving the full length of their sentence under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya observed:

Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India are [not] restricted to Indian citizens, but are available to any person on the soil of India. In fact [it] does not flow from the Constitution but has merely been recognized by the Constitution. Such rights are implicit human rights which are inextricable from a life worth being called a human existence and a person cannot be denuded under any circumstances. The petitioner, having completed his sentence, cannot be retained in further custody, in any prison cell, of whatever colour, texture or dimension. The petitioner no. 2 is entitled to live a life of dignity.