- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Calcutta High Court
- /
- Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up...
Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up February 5th-11th, 2024
Srinjoy Das
14 Feb 2024 12:56 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEXSoma Ghosh @ Soma Barman @ Soma (Barman) Ghosh & Ors. versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 37Merlin Projects Limited and another v The State of West Bengal and others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 38M/S Saraf Trexim Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 39Utpal Kanti Karan v State of West Bengal & Ors &...
NOMINAL INDEX
Soma Ghosh @ Soma Barman @ Soma (Barman) Ghosh & Ors. versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 37
Merlin Projects Limited and another v The State of West Bengal and others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 38
M/S Saraf Trexim Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 39
Utpal Kanti Karan v State of West Bengal & Ors & connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 40
X vs State of West Bengal 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 41
CBI v Binod Kr Maheshwari 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 42
R S Fuel Pvt Ltd vs Ankit Metal And Power Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 43
Mr. Raj Sahai vs. the State of West Bengal & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 44
ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 37
Case: Soma Ghosh @ Soma Barman @ Soma (Barman) Ghosh & Ors. versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court has directed the insurance company to pay an additional compensation of Rs 40,08,687 at 6% per annum, to the relatives of a man who was killed after being thrown from the front gate of a bus he had boarded, due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.
In allowing the appeal against the order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal ("MACT") which had awarded a sum of approx 3.68 lakhs of compensation, due to the alleged contributory negligence of the deceased, a single bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta held:
The learned tribunal has not considered the evidences on record but has proceeded hypothetically and assessed the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The investigation of the police is ended in charge sheet accusing the driver of the offending vehicle to be 6 responsible for the accident. Charge-sheet is prima-facie evidence which can be disbelieved. Only on the version of the FIR, the observation of the learned tribunal, appears to me not justified and beyond the evidence on record.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 38
Case: Merlin Projects Limited and another v The State of West Bengal and others
The Calcutta High Court has recently upheld the validity of a Traffic Notification that restricted the movements of Heavy Goods Vehicles and Medium Goods Vehicles have been restricted to ply from 6 am to 10 am on all days throughout the city of Kolkata except the Port area.
The notification however, made certain exceptions for goods vehicles carrying essential and perishable items such as LPG, Petroleum, Oxygen, Milk, Fruits, Vegetables, etc., which were allowed to ply from 10 pm-8 am and 12 pm-4 pm.
In dismissing a challenge to the notification by real-estate developer Merlin Projects Ltd., a single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held:
Restrictions imposed by the Notification are not disproportionate. The stipulations introduced by the Notification are quite appropriate and necessary to ensure free movement of traffic and in order to avoid chaos during office hours.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 39
Case Title: M/S Saraf Trexim Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax And Ors.
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the 200% penalty and held that the e-way bill generated for exporting goods to Bangladesh expired due to an accident.
The bench of Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya has observed that unless and until it is established by the department that the transporter of the goods or the owner of the goods had an intention to contravene the provisions of the Act, the question of imposing a penalty under Section 129 of the WBGST Act that is too high would not be justified.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 40
Case: Utpal Kanti Karan v State of West Bengal & Ors & connected matters
In a 187-page order, a larger bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justices Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen, and Kaushik Chanda have held that teachers in the State of West Bengal cannot seek re-fixation of salary due to having attained higher educational qualifications during the course of their employment, in absence of any rules for such re-fixation of salary.
In deciding the reference arising out of common questions of law in multiple cases, the bench held:
Enhancement of pay on acquisition of higher qualification during the service career is dependent upon the relevant rules operating at the time of acquisition of higher qualification and cannot be claimed as a matter of right in absence of Rules. If a teacher has consciously applied for a post under the pass graduate category in spite of having an Honours Graduate/Post Graduate qualification he/she/they cannot claim as a matter of right higher pay scale [for being overqualified.] The claim of higher pay scale on acquiring higher degree cannot be considered to be a vested right and elevated to a legal right. It is no more than a reasonable expectation.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 41
Case: X vs State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court has closed a contempt case against a group of government doctors who medically terminated the pregnancy of a minor rape survivor, without the leave of the Court, and only after the Court had asked for the formation of a medical board to ascertain the feasibility of termination of pregnancy.
A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya had called for an explanation from the doctors detailing why they needed to carry out the termination of pregnancy with such 'hot-haste'.
On this occasion, upon being told that the pregnancy had to be terminated on an emergency basis due to the patient suffering from labour pain, and bleeding, the Court noted:
In view of the tremendous pain being suffered by the petitioner at the relevant juncture, who was having labour pain and severe bleeding, the doctor was compelled in order to give relief to the patient, to terminate the pregnancy immediately.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 42
Case: CBI v Binod Kr Maheshwari
The Calcutta High Court has heavily criticized the conduct of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and its Director for failing to file an appeal within the statutory period of limitation.
A single bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De, in a plea for condonation of delay in filing the special leave to appeal, allowed delayed filing in the interest of justice and held:
I am astounded by the conduct of the CBI in such important matters how such delay could take place. The CBI ought to have been careful in filing the special leave (to appeal) within the period of limitation. CBI ought to be guided by its latest updated manual. In the instant case, sluggishness on its part is intolerable. Director of CBI being responsible should look into the matter and saddle the responsibility on a person concerned. The Director CBI cannot escape the responsibility for delay in such cases which is to be termed as deliberate one, which is intolerable.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 43
Case Title: R S Fuel Pvt Ltd vs Ankit Metal And Power Ltd
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that neither the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 nor the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 allows a party's request to halt the publication of an arbitral award to the extent of its reliance on another party's counter-clam. The bench noted that the notion of splitting an arbitral award for this purpose is unnatural and unsupported by law.
Case Title: Mr. Raj Sahai vs. the State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 44
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the complaint against the director as the prosecution failed to implead the company importing liquors not for sale.
The bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) has observed that the company has not been made an accused. The petitioner, a director of the company, has been made an accused. The place of seizure and the seized articles on which the case has been initiated is the registered office of the company. The petitioner has also been arrested from the office of the company. The complaint was in clear violation of Section 46B of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, which relates to offences by companies.