Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 15th July To 21st July, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

Axis Bank Limited Versus Indian Cable Net Company Limited & Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 163

Government of West Bengal & Anr. Versus Essex Development Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 164

K2V2 Hospitality Llp Vs Limton Electro Optics Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 165

Future Market Networks Ltd. Vs Laxmi Pat Surana & Anr Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 166

The Incoda Vs The General Manager, Metro Railway And Anr. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 167

Tamoghna Ghosh Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 168

Satyabrata Barik @ Mithu. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr Citaiton: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 169

Axis Bank Doesn't Perform Public Functions That Would Subject It To Writ Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Axis Bank Limited Versus Indian Cable Net Company Limited & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 163

The Calcutta High Court bench of Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has held that Axis Bank does not perform public functions that would subject it to writ jurisdiction. It held that adherence to RBI guidelines by a private bank does not equate to the performance of public duties.

The bench held that: “the appellant bank carrying on the business or commercial activity of banking does not discharge any public function or public  duty.”

2063 Crore Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court Directs West Bengal Government, WBIDC To Pay Amount

Case Title: Government of West Bengal & Anr. Versus Essex Development Investments (Mauritius) Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 164

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Krishna Rao has rejected the petition made under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the West Bengal Government and West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation claiming fraud in making of the arbitral award. The bench noted that the arbitral tribunal arrived upon the findings after considering the materials placed before it and the submissions made by the respective parties.

Further, it noted that the arbitral tribunal recorded all the submissions of the parties in the award. Therefore, the bench dismissed the Section 34 petition.

The bench directed the West Bengal Government and West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation to deposit 100% of the awarded sum.

Composite Reference To Arbitration Necessary When Dispute Involves Same Subject Matter: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: K2V2 Hospitality Llp Vs Limton Electro Optics Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 165

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held allowed composite reference of two companies to arbitration noting that the two arbitration agreement refer to the self-same demised property. Moreover, it noted that both the agreements were entered into by the same proposed lessee with two co-owners of the self-same property.

The bench held that: “if two different references were to be made, there would be ample scope of conflict of decision pertaining to the self-same subject matter between the co-owners of the self-same property.”

Supreme Court's Interpretation Of 'Three Months' As 90 Days In Section 34(3) Of Arbitration Act As Obiter Dicta, Not Ratio Decidendi: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Future Market Networks Ltd. Vs Laxmi Pat Surana & Anr

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 166

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta has held that the Supreme Court's observations regarding the interpretation of "three months" in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as 90 days in various cases were not the ratio decidendi but obiter dicta.

The bench held that the period of limitation must be computed based on calendar months, therefore, the period of limitation in Section 34(3) would be three months excluding the date of receipt of the arbitral award.

Invocation of Arbitration Beyond Stipulated Period In Clause Does Not Frustrate Parties' Intent To Arbitrate: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: The Incoda Vs The General Manager, Metro Railway And Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 167

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the invocation of arbitration after the period defined in the arbitration clause doesn't frustrate the intention of the parties to refer disputes to arbitration.

The bench held that the outer limit stipulated in the arbitration clause for invocation of arbitration if failed by the claimant, does not constitute a waiver or a deliberate relinquishment of the claim by the claimant.

Calcutta High Court Allows BJP Rally Outside CESC Office Over Alleged Increase In Electricity Prices, Limits Attendance To 1,000 Protestors

Case: Tamoghna Ghosh Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 168

The Calcutta High Court has allowed a protest by the supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) outside the offices of the Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (CESC) at Victoria House in Kolkata over the alleged increase in electricity prices. The protestors had approached the court for permission to hold the rally after the Kolkata Police declined to allow the same.

A single bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj allowed the protest rally while laying down certain conditions and limiting the attendance to a maximum of 1,000 protestors. The Court took judicial notice of the fact that such protests held by other political parties at the very same venue had been allowed by the police and reiterated earlier decisions that there shall be a level playing field for all political parties in the state.

Calcutta High Court Quashes Case Against Man Accused Of Voyeurism, Stalking For Secretly Clicking Photos Of Woman From His Residence

Case: Satyabrata Barik @ Mithu. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr

Citaiton: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 169

The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case of voyeurism and stalking against a man booked under Section 354C and D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The man was arrested by the police upon the complaint of a woman who had accused him of secretly taking pictures of her from his residence.

Justice Bibhas Ranjan De quashed the case initiated against the man upon observing that while photographing a woman doing private acts may amount to voyeruism, the act of stalking would require specifc elements to be proven.