Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 29th April To 05th May, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

RKD Niraj JV & Ors v. Union of India & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 100

Sudarsan Mandal and Another v The State of West Bengal and others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 101

Meleveetil Damodaran v. UpHealth Holdings Inc 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 102

AKASH SHARMA VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 103

Partha Chatterjee. -vs.- Enforcement Directorate 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 104

Dr. Tapas Kumar Mandal Vs. UOI & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 105

Harendra Nath Bishayi vs State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 106

M/s. Dalhousie Jute Company Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 107

Animesh Singha Mahapatra and Ors. vs State of WB and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 108

Saurav Krishna Basu vs State of West Bengal 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 109

Sk. Ekbal @ Ekbal Sk. vs The State of West Bengal and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 110

Orders/Judgements

Constitution Of Arbitral Tribunal Is Not A Bar On A Party's Right To Approach Section 9 Court For Implementation Of Its Order: Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 100

Case Title: RKD Niraj JV & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

The High Court of Calcutta has held that constitution of arbitral tribunal is not a bar on a party's right to approach Section 9 Court for implementation of its order.

The bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya held that bar under Section 9(3) which proscribe Section 9 remedy upon constitution of arbitral tribunal would not apply when the Court is reapproached for the enforcement of an order passed before the constitution of the tribunal.

The Court held that enforcement of an order passed by the Court under Section 9 cannot be sought before the arbitral tribunal under Section 17, therefore, the remedy before the tribunal would not be efficacious and bar under Section 9(3) would not apply.

Law Doesn't Discriminate Between Individual Women, Couples Seeking IVF; No Requirement For Sperm/Oocyte To Come From Couple Themselves: Calcutta HC

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 101

Case No: Sudarsan Mandal and Another v The State of West Bengal and others

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that in cases of in-vitrio fertilisation (IVF), it is not mandatory that either the sperm or the oocyte must come from the couple seeking IVF themselves.

A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya perused the rules under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (Act) and allowed a plea by a husband who along with his wife sought to conceive through IVF, after losing their teenage daughter at a young age. The couple was facing difficulties due to the husband being 59 years old, and above the limit for IVF according to the Act, while the wife being 46 years old was eligible for the same. 

In A Post Award Section 9 Application, The Court Cannot Comment On The Correctness Of The Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 102

Case Title: Meleveetil Damodaran v. UpHealth Holdings Inc

The Calcutta High Court has held that while hearing a post-award application under Section 9 of the A&C Act, the Court would not have the jurisdiction to decide on the correctness of the award.

The Division Bench of Justices I.P. Mukerji and Biswaroop Chowdhury held that the Court would not adjudicate on whether the damages awarded in the arbitral award are correct or not.

Plea In Calcutta High Court Seeks Extension Of Metro Service Timings, Says Last Train's Timing Being Earlier Than All Major Cities Causes Inconvenience To Commuters

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 103

Case: AKASH SHARMA VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

The Calcutta High Court disposed of a PIL seeking an extension of metro timings in Kolkata by directing the railway authorities to consider the petitioner's prayer for an extension of the timings for the last metro by 45 minutes every day.

A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya said:

"While the domain of running metro services is the expertise of the railways and the court cannot comment on the same, we direct the authorities to consider the representation made by the petitioner for extension of metro timings by 45 minutes, till 10:30pm for the benefit of the commuters."

Calcutta High Court Denies Bail To Former WB Education Minister Partha Chatterjee In Cash-For-Jobs Scam

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 104

Case: Partha Chatterjee. -vs.- Enforcement Directorate

The Calcutta High Court has declined the bail prayer of former Education Minister and Member of Legislative Assembly Partha Chatterjee in the cash-for-jobs recruitment scam, involving the illegal recruitment of Assistant Teachers under the West Bengal Board of Primary Education.

A single bench upon going through the evidence including the amounts of money and assets, jewellery seized from Chatterjee and co-accused Arpita Mukherjee denied the bail application.

Person Has No Right To Be Promoted But Has Fundamental Right To Be Considered For Promotion: Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 105

Case Name- Dr. Tapas Kumar Mandal Vs. UOI & Ors

A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Amrita Sinha while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Dr. Tapas Kumar Mandal Vs. UOI & Ors has held that an employee has no right to be promoted but he has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion.

Non-Payment Of Withheld Pension Gives Right To Approach Court, Even If there is Delay : Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 106

Case Name: Harendra Nath Bishayi vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Rajasekhar Mantha, J., while deciding a writ petition in the case of Harendra Nath Bishayi v. State of West Bengal & Ors., held that employees who have not received their withheld pension amounts have the legal right to seek recourse in court, regardless of any delay in doing so.

Interruption In Service Due To Accident Would Not Amount To Break In Service For The Purpose Of S. 2A Of Gratuity Act: Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 107

Case Name- M/s. Dalhousie Jute Company Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Arindam Mukherjee while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of M/s. Dalhousie Jute Company Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. has held that non-rendering of uninterrupted service due to accident would not amount to break in service for the purposes of Section 2A of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Gratuity Act).

No Change Can Be Made To Essential Qualifications After Recruitment Process Starts: Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 108

Case Name- Animesh Singha Mahapatra and Ors. vs State of WB and Ors

A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Animesh Singha Mahapatra and Ors. vs State of WB and Ors. has held that once the process of recruitment starts, no change can be made to essential qualification during the subsistence of the recruitment process unless such power is reserved in the advertisement itself or under some rule governing the recruitment.

Employer Under Obligation To Ensure No Prejudice Is Caused To Employee In Disciplinary Proceedings.: Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 109

Case Name- Saurav Krishna Basu vs State of West Bengal

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Saurav Krishna Basu vs State of West Bengal has held that employer is under an obligation in a disciplinary proceeding to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the employee and this obligation involves a duty to act fairly.

Workman Entitled To Payment Of Gratuity If He Proves Continuous Service Even After Declaration Of Formal Retirement: Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 110

Case Title: Sk. Ekbal @ Ekbal Sk. vs The State of West Bengal and Ors.

The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Arindam Mukherjee held that the was entitled to gratuity for his continued service even after the declaration of formal retirement. The bench noted that the establishment of a period of 'continuous service' is a prerequisite for the payment of gratuity and the burden of proof lies with the Workman.