- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest:...
Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: April 2022 [Citations 102 - 153]
Aaratrika Bhaumik
5 May 2022 7:45 PM IST
![Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: April 2022 [Citations 102 - 153]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/02/01/750x450_408693-calcutta-high-court-monthly-digest.jpg "Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: April 2022 [Citations 102 - 153]")
Nominal Index [Citations: 102 -153]Central Bureau of Investigation v. Biman Kumar Saha & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 102Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha v. Laxmi Tunga & ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 103Irina Mullick v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 104Purnima Kandu & Anr v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 105Laxmi Tunga & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors...
Nominal Index [Citations: 102 -153]
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Biman Kumar Saha & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 102
Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha v. Laxmi Tunga & ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 103
Irina Mullick v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 104
Purnima Kandu & Anr v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 105
Laxmi Tunga & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 106
Dr Santi Prasad Sinha v. Laxmi Tunga and ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 107
Rajib Chakraborty and Ors v. The State of West Bengal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 108
Anindita Bera v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 109
The Court on its own Motion In re: The Brutal Incident of Bogtui Village, Rampurhat, Birbhum 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 110
Dr. Kunal Saha v. The State of West Bengal & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 111
Monirul Molla v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 112
APL Metals Ltd. v. Mountview Tracom LLP & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 113
Sona Karar & anr v. The Howrah Municipal Corporation & ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 114
Sumitra Bhattacharyya v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 115
Shaista Afreen and Others v. The State of West Bengal and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 116
Purnima Kandu & Anr v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 117
Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha v. Laxmi Tunga and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 118
Ramesh Co. v. Imperial Tubes Pvt. Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 119
Suvendu Adhikari v. Hon'ble Speaker, WB Legislative Assembly and Ors and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 120
Rohit Pal v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 121
Azizur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal & ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 122
Sambhu Das v. The State of West Bengal & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 123
M/s. Satyen Construction v. State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 124
Dr. Papiya Mukherjee versus Aruna Banerjea and Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 125
Debaki Nandan Maiti v. The State of West Bengal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 126
Anindya Sundar Das v. West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Bar Association and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 127
Dr. Sudipta Banerjee v. L.S. Davar & Company & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 128
Rajib Chakraborty and Ors v. The State of West Bengal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 129
In the matter of : Ms. Minakhi Mukherjee & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 130
Prafulla Mura v. The State of West Bengal & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 131
Shaista Afreen and Others v. The State of West Bengal and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 132
The State of West Bengal v. Union of India & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 133
Manav Investment and Training Company Ltd v. DBS Bank India Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 134
Anindya Sundar Das v. Union of India and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 135
Priyanka Tibrewal v. State of West Bengal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 136
Pallabi Chatterjee and Ors v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 137
Pallabi Chatterjee and Ors v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 138
Haren Bagchi Biswas alias Harendranath Biswas v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 139
Sukumar Ray v. M/s Indo-Industrial Services and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 140
Bengal State Table Tennis Association & Ors. v Malda District Table Tennis Association & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 141
Soumendu Adhikari v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 142
In the matter of: Parimal Barui 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 143
Madhu Singh v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 144
Indranil Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 145
Subrata Kumar Samanta v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 146
Bidyut Kumar Mondal v. Pankaj Sarkar & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 147
Rupa Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 148
Snigdha Datta (Basu) v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 149
In the matter of Kapil Raj 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 150
Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. v. Rajesh Kumar Sinha & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 151
Nur Afsar Mandal v. Visva Bharati and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 152
Ideal Unique Realtors Private Limited & Anr. versus Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 153
Orders/Judgments
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Biman Kumar Saha & Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 102
The Calcutta High Court has recently refused to grant relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for condonation of delay of about 302 days in filing an appeal. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri remarked that the government agency is not a privileged litigant and no explanation is forthcoming as to why the heads of various offices of CBI took such an unusual time to release the record of the case for the purpose of filing the appeal. "..the Government or a Government agency is not a privileged litigant. The Government agency is required to explain the delay in the same manner like that of an ordinary litigant to get the relief of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act", the Court underscored. Further opining that it has not been explained why the CBI took such an unusual time to file the appeal after the expiry of almost 302 days of limitation, the Court observed, "The petitioner has stated in the said paragraph different dates when the file was sent to different offices of CBI. It has not been stated why the office of various heads of office of CBI took unusual time to release the record and finally allowed the appeal to be filed after expiry of 302 days of Limitation."
2. Calcutta High Court Stays Single Judge Order For CBI Probe In SSC 'Group D' Recruitment Scam
Case Title: Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha v. Laxmi Tunga & ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 103
The Calcutta High Court stayed a Single Judge's order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a probe into the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). A Division Bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee was informed by the concerned counsels that an inquiry Committee headed by Justice Ranjit Kumar Bagh, former judge of the High Court is looking into the issue of illegal appointments of group-D employees and that the Committee has directed Sinha to appear before it on April 5. Opining that there is a likelihood of conflicting findings if two parallel proceedings are allowed to proceed simultaneously, the Court directed the CBI to not register any FIR against Sinha or interrogate him any further until the next date of hearing that is slated to take place on April 4. "..if these two parallel proceedings are allowed to run simultaneously there is likelihood of conflict of findings and also having regard to the fact that the original documents relating to such alleged illegal appointments are presently lying in the custody of the learned Registrar General of this court in terms of the order passed by the Regular Bench, the Central Bureau of Investigation shall not register any first information report against the present appellant nor they will put appellant for further interrogation, if any, till Monday next, that is, April 4, 2022", the Court observed.
Case Title: Irina Mullick v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 104
The Calcutta High Court directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to process the loan application of a third-year law student who had applied for an education loan under the 'West Bengal Student Credit Card Scheme' notified by the State government on June 30, 2021. The West Bengal Student Credit Card Scheme was framed by the State Higher Education Department for providing Credit Cards to students for pursuing higher education. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was adjudicating upon a plea moved by Irina Mullick, a third year law student whose loan application of Rs 2,50,000 was rejected by the SBI because of the low CIBIL score of her father. CIBIL is a measure of the credit- worthiness of an applicant. Opining that the State government should ensure that no student in need of money is compelled to sacrifice his or her education, the Court underscored, "The State Government is thus requested to ensure that no student who is in need of money, is forced to sacrifice his/her education or future career aspirations for want of timely financial intervention." Directing the petitioner to make a fresh loan application under the State government scheme, the Court ordered SBI to process such an application within 2 weeks thereafter.
Case Title: Purnima Kandu & Anr v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 105
The Calcutta High Court transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the investigation into the death of former Congress councillor of Jhalda Municipality in Purulia, Tapan Kandu who was reportedly shot dead by miscreants on March 13. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha was adjudicating upon a plea moved by the widow of the deceased Councillor seeking a CBI probe on the ground that no progress in the investigation has been made by the State investigating authorities. Expressing deep concern, the Court also noted that the Inspector-In-Charge of the Jhalda Police station, Sanjib Ghosh who is set to have facilitated the crime has not yet been taken into custody. The Court observed that it is 'surprising' that the mobile phone of Ghosh has not yet been seized and that vital data may have been lost by now. Accordingly, while ordering a CBI probe, the Court underscored, "..there is need for instilling faith of the public at large in any investigation, relating to the crime of this nature. The public at large, need to see that the Rule of Law is still prevalent, given the gravity and politically sensitive nature of the crime. Justice must be seen to be done. Satisfaction of the de facto complainant, petitioners' family members and persons associated with them also needs to be addressed."
Case Title: Laxmi Tunga & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 106
Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court ordered the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central) and the Commissioner of Police of Bidhan Nagar Police Commissionerate to ensure the presence of 4 members of the High Powered Committee which had been constituted by the State to oversee the recruitment of close to 13,000 non-teaching staff in government-aided schools in the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by 4 pm on Monday. The direction was issued while adjudicating upon a batch of petitions pertaining to the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). Directing the police authorities to ensure the presence of 4 members of the High Powered Committee before the CBI, the Court ordered, "..I find that Sri S. Acharya and Sri P. K. Bandyopadhyay are working in Shilpa Sadan, 6th floor, 4, Abanindranath Tagore Sarani, Kolkata-700016 and as Sri A. K. Sarkar is residing in Falguni Abasan, Block-FB, Sector-III, Salt Lake and Sri T. Panja is working now as the Senior Law Officer in School Education Department, Government of West Bengal, Bikash Bhawan, 5th Floor, I direct the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central) Kolkata Police to ensure the presence of Mr. S. Acharya and Mr. P. K. Bandyopadhyay before CBI by 3 p.m. today and I direct the Commissioner of Bidhan Nagar Police Commissionerate to take steps for ensuring the presence of Sri A. K. Sarkar and Sri T. Panja who are residing and working, respectively in Salt Lake, which is under the Commissioner of Police, Bidhan Nagar Commissionerate. Their presence are also to be ensured by the Commissioner of Police of Bidhan Nagar Commissionerate by 4 p.m. today."
Case Title: Dr Santi Prasad Sinha v. Laxmi Tunga and ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 107
The Calcutta High Court allowed the CBI to interrogate S.P. Sinha, former chairman of the School Service Commission's advisory committee, and former education secretary Alok Sarkar pertaining to the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in State aided schools but barred the agency from taking them into custody. A Division Bench comprising Justice Subrata Talukdar and Justice Krishna Rao was adjudicating upon an appeal moved against a Single Judge order which had allowed the CBI to conduct custodial interrogation of the aforementioned members of the State appointed recruitment panel if the need arises. Four other division benches of the court had refused to hear cases related to the recruitment scam before the matter came up before Justice Talukdar's bench. Partially modifying the impugned order, the Division Bench observed, "This Court is of the view that the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench requires to be modified at this stage only to the extent that the appellant shall present himself for interrogation as directed and the CBI would act in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench without however taking recourse to custodial interrogation of the appellant." The Court further clarified, "Needless to dilate this order will axiomatically cover, if and as applicable, other identically circumstanced persons as the appellant." The Court further underscored that in the event the appellant fails to present himself for interrogation before the CBI as directed by the Single Judge Bench, the CBI shall be entitled to take recourse to steps in accordance with law.
Case Title: Rajib Chakraborty and Ors v. The State of West Bengal and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 108
The Calcutta High Court ordered that private unaided schools whose names had come up with regard to allegations of arbitrary fee hike during the pandemic could not deny promotion to any student or withhold report cards for non-payment of fees. The Court further directed two joint special officers designated by the Court to look into any complaint of arbitrary increase in school fees during the pandemic and take a decision in the matter with regard to fee actually payable by those guardians/ students. A Bench comprising Justice IP Mukherji and Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was adjudicating upon a bunch of PILs filed by aggrieved parents seeking a partial remission of school fees for the session 2021-2022 due to the ongoing pandemic owing to which students are attending schools only through virtual mediums. The Bench vide its order dated October 13, 2020, had slashed the fees charged by private schools in the State by 20% due to the ongoing pandemic. Restricting schools from withholding promotion or report cards on account of non-payment of fees, the Court directed on Wednesday, "None of the 145 schools/teaching institutions shall deny promotion to any student to the next session or withhold their report card till further orders. All students shall be allowed to join the higher class in the new session and shall be provided the normal educational facilities"
Case Title: Anindita Bera v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 109
The Calcutta High Court ordered for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe in another matter pertaining to the alleged illegal appointment of assistant teachers in State run schools in West Bengal. The Court was adjudicating upon a batch of pleas alleging illegal appointment of assistant teachers for Class 9 and Class 10 in State run schools pertaining to the West Bengal State Level Selection Test (SLST) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay directed the Regional Head of CBI to start investigation in the matter after registering a case in course of the day itself. "Therefore, this matter is also required to be investigated by CBI by registering a new case in this matter as it relates to appointment of Assistant Teachers in classes IX and X", the Court directed. Opining that he is 'extremely surprised' by the revelation and the dishonest statement of Sinha, the Court remarked, "This notice shows, by which I am extremely and extremely surprised, that there were at least two or more than two meetings of the said committee. Whereas before this court Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha, the advisor of the Commission and convenor of the five member committee in other matters having similar allegations of corruption, here in the appointment in the posts of assistant teachers by the School Service Commission said time and again that there was no meeting of the said 5 member committee. The other members of the committee have also given their reply to similar questions before CBI".Therefore, the CBI was ordered to investigate the matter and also interrogate Sinha specially and other members of the committee again.
9. Birbhum Massacre| Calcutta High Court Orders CBI To Probe Into Murder Of TMC Leader Bhadu Sheikh
Case Title: The Court on its own Motion In re: The Brutal Incident of Bogtui Village, Rampurhat, Birbhum
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 110
The Calcutta High Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the murder of local All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Bhadu Sheikh that was followed by arson in Bogtui village, Rampurhat, Birbhum, that killed eight people, including two children. The Court had earlier transferred to the CBI the investigation into the incident of violence in Birbhum district of West Bengal that had allegedly taken place in retaliation to the murder of Sheikh. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on Thursday had taken on record the preliminary report submitted by the CBI as per the Court's earlier directions. Pursuant to the perusal of the report, the Court observed that the report prima facie suggests that the brutal incident of burning and killing at Bogtui village is the direct fall out of the murder of Bhadu Sheikh at 8.30 P.M. on the same day. It was further noted that the CBI report suggests that the incident is the outcome political rivalry amongst members of two groups in the village and that the burning of houses resulting in the death of 8 persons was a retaliatory plan. Ordering a CBI probe into the murder, the Court underscored, "The object of issuing the necessary direction in the suo motu petition is to ensure appropriate action against the person responsible for the incident. On the basis of the material which is available before us, we are of the opinion that the said object can be more appropriately achieved if the incident of murder of Bhadu Sk is also investigated by the CBI along with the incident of burning of houses and murder of villagers of Bogtui which took place shortly thereafter. The second incident prima facie seems to be the fall out of first incident".
Case Title: Dr. Kunal Saha v. The State of West Bengal & Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 111
The Calcutta High Court while exercising its power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC allowed an application for rejection of a plaint seeking compensation of Rs 100 crore against the State of West Bengal on account of vicarious liability for an alleged act of defamation committed by a High Court Judge. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that the plaint lacks any cause of action as there exists no vicarious liability on the State for the judicial actions of the Judge. "The misplaced notion of the plaintiff that the State is liable and is required to take action against orders passed by the High Court is absolutely unfounded and finds no place in the law. Secondly, it has to be noted that there is no master-servant relationship between the State and a High Court Judge, and accordingly, there is no question of any vicarious liability on the State for the judicial actions of the Judge", the Court observed. The Court further opined that the plaint fails to indicate any law that creates an obligation on the State to take action against a Judge for an order passed by the Judge in his judicial capacity. It was further noted that the Judge's Protection Act, 1985 clearly provides protection to the concerned Judge and that the State is required to obey and comply with the orders of the Court.
Case Title: Monirul Molla v. The State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 112
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court issued a directive to trial courts in West Bengal stipulating that a sentence of life imprisonment till death, without any scope of remission, can only be passed in rape cases. A Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Bivas Pattanayak observed that such a sentence of life imprisonment till one's death can only be imposed by the higher judiciary that is the Supreme Court or the High Court when commuting death sentences. Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Union of India v. V Sriharan Alias Murugan and Others and Gauri Shankar v. State of Punjab, the Court issued the following directions to all trial Court judges in the State, "Except in cases where the law provides for a sentence of imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of the person's natural life (e.g., sections 376A, 376AB, 376D, 376DA, 376DB and 376E of I.P.C.), trial Courts while imposing a sentence of life imprisonment as provided under section 53 of I.P.C. shall not qualify the said sentence by directing that the sentence shall continue till the death of the convict or without remission as prescribed in law.".
Case Title: APL Metals Ltd. v. Mountview Tracom LLP & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 113
The Calcutta High Court has observed that S.37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act (Arbitration Act) and S.13 of the Commercial Courts act exclude the applicability of Clause 15 of Letters Patent. The Division Bench of Justice I.P. Mukerji and Justice Aniruddha Roy relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Simplex Infrastructures, (2017) 14 SCC 225, to hold that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code and no appeal lies against an order which does not fall within the four corners of S. 37 of the Arbitration Act. The Court held that an order passed under Sections 36(2) and (3) of the Arbitration Act is not an order contemplated under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act r/w S. 13 of the Commercial Courts Act. The Court also held that an order which is not appealable under S. 37 of the Arbitration Act, is also not appealable under S. 13 of the Commercial Courts Act and that S. 13 expressly excludes the applicability of Clause 15 of Letters Patent to orders which are not appealable under S. 13, therefore, there is an express exclusion against the exercise of power under the provisions of Letters Patent to hear appeals against an order not appealable under S. 37 of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: Sona Karar & anr v. The Howrah Municipal Corporation & ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 114
The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that unless an order of demolition specifically indicates the nature of the deviation and the extent of unauthorised construction which is to be demolished, such an order cannot be implemented. Justice Shampa Sarkar observed, "In the opinion of the Court unless the order of demolition specifically indicates the nature of the deviation and the extent of unauthorised construction which is to be demolished, such order cannot be implemented. The order is also unreasoned and arbitrary." Pursuant to the perusal of the rival submissions, the Court opined that the order of demolition does not point out the details of the deviation from the sanction plan. "..this Court is of the opinion that the order does not point out the nature, extent and details of the deviation from the sanction plan. There are no allegations of extension of floors, during the pendency of the revised plan", the Court observed.
Case Title: Sumitra Bhattacharyya v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 115
The Calcutta High Court asked IPS officer Damayanti Sen to oversee the probe in Deganga, Matia, Ingrejbazar and Banshdroni rape cases. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Srivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed that considering the nature of the incidents and the allegations made, a responsible senior lady police officer should be appointed to supervise the investigation. The Court's remarks are believed to have been made in the wake of an investigation into the Park Street rape case a decade ago. "..considering the material pointed out to us, we direct that the investigation of the incidents at village Nehalpur, Nandipara, incident on Dol Purnima noted above as also the incident of rape at English Bazar will be done under the supervision of Smt. Damayanti Sen, IPS presently working as Special Commissioner of Police to Kolkata Police. If Smt. Sen has any difficulty in supervising the investigation, she will be at liberty to indicate the same to this court on the next date of hearing", the Court directed. On the last date of hearing, the Court had granted leave to the petitioners to suggest the name of a high ranking police officer under whose supervision, the investigation can be carried out.
Case Title: Shaista Afreen and Others v. The State of West Bengal and Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 116
The Calcutta High Court ordered a CBI investigation into the Hanshkhali gangrape and murder case. According to reports, a 14-year-old girl belonging to the scheduled caste community died on April 5 after she was allegedly gangraped by the son of a panchayat member owing allegiance to the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and others in West Bengal's Nadia district. She was bleeding profusely when she returned home and died later that night, according to her parents who lodged a police complaint on April 10. Opining that a fair investigation is required to instil confidence in the family members of the victim and also the residents of the locality and the State, the Court underscored, "..we are of the opinion that in order to have fair investigation in the matter and to instill confidence in the family members of the victim and also the residents of the locality and the State, the investigation should be carried out by the CBI instead of the local police. Hence, we direct the State Investigating Agency to hand over the investigation to the CBI with immediate effect. The State Investigating Agency will hand over all the papers relating to the investigation along with the custody of the accused persons to the CBI forthwith."
Case Title: Purnima Kandu & Anr v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 117
The Calcutta High Court ordered a CBI investigation into the unnatural death of Niranjan Baishnab, who was believed to be an eyewitness to the murder of Congress councillor Tapan Kandu in the Purulia district. The Court had earlier directed the CBI to probe into the the death of former Congress councillor of Jhalda Municipality in Purulia, Tapan Kandu who was reportedly shot dead by miscreants on March 13. Some motorcycle-borne persons had reportedly shot Tapan dead when he had gone for a walk near his residence. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha ordered that the case papers in the matter to be handed to the central agency, which is already probing the councillor's killing pursuant to the Court's earlier orders. "This Court as of now cannot find any fault with the investigation conducted by the State police. However, given the fact that the deceased Niranjan Baishnab, was an eye witness to a murder which has already been transferred to and investigated into by the CBI, in the fitness of things and for the purpose of comprehensive investigation, this Court is of the view that the investigation into the death of Niranjan Baishnab being, F.I.R. No.50 of 2022 dated 7th April, 2022, of Jhalda Police Station must also be transferred to the C.B.I. for the purpose of further investigation", the Court ordered.
Case Title: Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha v. Laxmi Tunga and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 118
In a temporary relief to senior West Bengal minister Partha Chatterjee, a Division bench of the Calcutta High Court extended a stay for five weeks on an earlier order that directed him to appear before the CBI in connection with a petition alleging irregularities in appointment of assistant teachers in state government-aided schools. In the impugned order, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay had directed the then Education Minister Partha Chatterjee to appear before the CBI for interrogation by Tuesday evening. He had further granted liberty to the CBI to interrogate Chatterjee by taking him into custody if the CBI thinks that Chatterjee is not co-opertaing with the CBI. On Wednesday, a Division Bench comprising Justice Subrata Talukder and Justice A K Mukherjee extended a stay on the impugned order for a period of 5 weeks. "Since the Committee has been now requested to complete the enquiry into the Group-C appointments and submit its Report within four weeks, the Order of stay as granted by this Court on the 12th of April, 2022 shall continue for a period of five weeks from this date", the Court ordered.
Case Title: Ramesh Co. v. Imperial Tubes Pvt. Ltd
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 119
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that the grant of leave for dispensation of the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation as prescribed under section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 would constitute a judicial act. Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act provides that a suit which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre- institution mediation under the prescribed rules. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was adjudicating upon an application for the recalling of two orders passed by the Master under the Original Side Rules of the High Court granting leave to the plaintiff under section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act. "It must be recognized that the practice adopted and continued is that of a Single Judge sitting in the Commercial Division passing a judicial order for grant of leave for dispensing with the statutory requirement of exhausting the remedy provided under section 12A of the Act. This practice is being followed from the time the courts familiarized themselves with the new regime under the Commercial Courts Act. Granting leave under section 12-A has now been accepted as judicial business within the exclusive domain of the Court / Commercial Division", the Court underscored
Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari v. Hon'ble Speaker, WB Legislative Assembly and Ors and other connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 120
The Calcutta High Court set aside West Bengal Assembly Speaker Biman Banerjee's order dismissing a petition by Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari which sought disqualification of TMC lawmaker Mukul Roy as a member of the House on the ground of defection and restored the matter for fresh consideration. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj set aside the impugned order after coming to the conclusion that it is perverse. "..the impugned order of the Speaker is clearly a perverse order and perversity being one of the grounds of judicial review available against such an order, this Court finds that the order impugned cannot be sustained", the Court ordered. The Court noted that the Speaker had refused to admit electronic evidence by stating that it was not accompanied by certificate in terms of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. The Court underscored that it is necessary for the Speaker to duly take into account the certificate given by the petitioner under Section 65-B of the Act before rejecting the electronic evidence as inadmissible which he has failed to do in the present case.
Case Title: Rohit Pal v. The State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 121
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that it is immaterial whether the breasts of a 13 year old girl are developed or not for the commission of the offence of sexual assault under Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) as long as it is proved that the accused had touched the specific part of the body of the girl with sexual intent. During the proceedings, it was alleged on behalf of the appellant that since the the concerned Medical Officer had deposed that the breasts of the victim girl was not developed, the question of touching breasts by the accused did not arise at all. Dismissing such a contention, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed, "In the instant case, the victim girl stated in clear term before the Learned Magistrate as well as during trial that the accused touched her breasts and kissed her. It is absolutely immaterial whether breasts of a 13 years old girl were developed or not. The specific part of the body of a girl of 13 years of age shall be held and term as breast for the purpose of Section 7 of the POCSO Act even if her breasts are not developed due to certain medical grounds".
Case Title: Azizur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal & ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 122
The Calcutta High Court has observed that policy decisions of the State are not to be disturbed unless they are found to be grossly arbitrary or irrational. While examining the scope of judicial review of an administrative action, Justice Shampa Sarkar observed, "The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or is manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review."
Case Title: Sambhu Das v. The State of West Bengal & Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 123
The Calcutta High Court has recently set aside the conviction for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the IPC after observing that since no marks of injury had been found on the body or private parts of the victim, the allegation of 'forcible rape' is not sustainable. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri noted that the victim had been examined by the concerned Medical officer after 12 days of the occurrence of the incident. Noting that no marks of violence had been found on the body of the victim, the Court remarked, "The prosecutrix was examined by the Medical Officer after 12 days of occurrence. She did not find any marks of violence in her private part or any portion of her body. Had it been a case of forcible rape where the prosecutrix tried her best to resist the accused, there is every possibility of having some kind of injury on different parts of her body. The medical officer did not find any injury in any part of the body of the prosecutrix.". Opining further that it would be 'highly risky' to sustain the conviction of the accused in the absence of medical evidence, the Court underscored, "..the evidence of the prosecutrix is not supported by the medical evidence and in such a case it would be highly risky to sustain conviction of the accused. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt."
Case Title: M/s. Satyen Construction v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 124
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the scope of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) cannot be extended to enforcement of the arbitral award or granting the fruits of the award to the award holder as an interim measure. The Single Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the right to withdraw the amount deposited by the award debtor, pursuant to an application filed for stay of operation of the award under Section 36(2), does not constitute as an interim protection under Section 9 of the A&C Act since it transgresses into the domain of enforcement of the award. The Court held that the scope of Section 9 of the A&C Act cannot be extended to enforcement of the arbitral award or granting the fruits of the award to the award holder as an interim measure. The Court ruled that the relief sought by the petitioner of withdrawal of the amount deposited by the respondent/ award debtor went beyond the scope of Section 9. The Court added that even under Section 9(ii)(e) of the A&C Act, where the court is guided by purely equitable considerations, the Court cannot permit withdrawal of the amount deposited by the award debtor. "Accordingly, even after the amended Section 36 of the Act, the right to withdraw the deposited amount by the judgment debtor cannot be stretched as an interim protection under Section 9 of the Act. The order sought for in this petition transgresses beyond the pale of protection in aid of enforcement into the exclusive domain of enforcement of an award. Thus, the prayer sought for cannot be granted in an application under Section 9 of the Act", the Court ordered.
Case Title: Dr. Papiya Mukherjee versus Aruna Banerjea and Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 125
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that an arbitration agreement will not be discharged by the death of a party and it will be enforceable by or against the legal representatives of the deceased party. The Single Bench of Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava held that though the legal representatives were not signatories to the arbitration agreement, but being the legal representatives of the signatory to an arbitration agreement, they were bound by the agreement. The Court noted that the respondents were the legal heirs / successors of the deceased co-partner. The Court held that Section 40 of the A&C Act clearly provides that an arbitration agreement will not be discharged by the death of a party and it will be enforceable by or against the legal representatives of the deceased party. The High Court ruled that though the respondents were not signatories to the arbitration agreement executed between the applicant and the deceased co-partner, but being the legal representatives of the co-partner, they were bound by the arbitration agreement. The Court thus held that an arbitration agreement in the form of partnership deed existed and after the death of the co-partner, who was a signatory to the agreement, the respondents being his legal representatives were bound by the agreement to the extent provided by law.
Case Title: Debaki Nandan Maiti v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 126
The Calcutta High Court has recently upheld an eviction order wherein the daughter-in-law was directed to vacate the residence belonging to her father-in-law after noting that she is a medical practitioner and is thus not in a poor financial condition. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha observed, "The applicant, Swati Das, is admittedly a medical practitioner. She is neither destitute nor in a poor economic or financial condition, and there is no averment to that effect in the application. Apart from the questions of law raised by the applicant daughter-in-law, she has not able to make out any case for restoration with possession of her father-in-law's house." The Court noted that the applicant had never claimed any right of residence or share of the household against the father-in-law or her husband under the provisions of the the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It was also noted that the applicant had not asserted any domestic violence or torture perpetrated by either her father-in-law or her husband. Thus, the Court opined that it can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to protect the life and liberty of the senior citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. "In respect of a discomfort expressed by a senior citizen towards his children, a single complaint is good enough evidence. Further, there are no disputed questions of fact in the instant case i.e., that the house admittedly belongs to the father of the writ petitioner", the Court underscored further.
Case Title: Anindya Sundar Das v. West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Bar Association and Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 127
The Calcutta High Court set aside an order whereby the tenure of the existing Technical Member of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal has been extended until formal appointment of Technical Member by the Government. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed, "..the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside, however by making it clear that if a fresh prayer for stay is made before the learned Single Judge, then the same will be duly considered in accordance with law and appropriate order will be passed taking into account the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter." The Court however clarified that since the Administrative Member of the Tribunal has continued by virtue of the impugned interim order, therefore, the orders passed by him in the meanwhile are saved from challenge on the ground of his continuance as such. The Bench noted that no facts or legal provisions had been referred to in the impugned order passed by Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and was thus liable to be set aside.
27. Time To Re-Look At S.27 Of Indian Contract Act To Protect 'Trade Secrets': Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Dr. Sudipta Banerjee v. L.S. Davar & Company & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 128
The Calcutta High Court has recently upheld an injunction order passed against former employees of a law firm restraining them from divulging confidential information and trade secrets gathered during the course of their employment. The Court further opined that sharing of such information and communication would not only be unethical but would also constitute a breach of the confidentiality clause in the service contract causing serious prejudice to the law firm. A Bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed, "The plaintiff as a professional body may not have any trade secrets per se but the persons who were/are in employment of the plaintiff would certainly be privy to privileged information and any sharing of such information and communication would not only be unethical but also a breach of the confidentiality clause which may result in serious prejudice and harm that may be caused to the clients of the plaintiff firm and may expose the plaintiff firm to civil and criminal consequences." Opining that a balance needs to be maintained between the right to freedom of trade and protection of trade secrets, the Court remarked, "The time has possibly come to have a re-look at Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act since times have changed and there is a necessity to impose some restrictions and recognize negative covenants in service contracts especially where it involves specialized knowledge as it must live up to the present needs. While freedom of contract and trade need to be upheld, they must also be balanced. No one should be allowed to take advantage of the trade secrets and confidential information developed by an individual and uses it for their own gain and when confronted, take the shelter of this section. Confidential information and trade secrets are required to be protected by law."
Case Title: Rajib Chakraborty and Ors v. The State of West Bengal and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 129
The Calcutta High Court reiterated that private unaided schools whose names had come up with regards to allegations of arbitrary fee hike during the pandemic cannot deny promotion to any student or withhold report cards for non-payment of fees. The Court further instructed such schools to put up the Court's earlier interim orders stipulating such a direction in a suitable place in their notice boards for the appreciation by all concerned. A Bench comprising Justice IP Mukherji and Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was adjudicating upon a bunch of PILs alleging that schools in particular G.D Birla Centre For Education have prevented students who have failed to clear their outstanding dues from attending classes or being promoted. Directing G.D Birla Centre for Education to immediately withdraw the impugned notice, the Court observed, "G.D. Birla Centre for Education will immediately withdraw its notice dated 9th April, 2022 and allow the students to attend classes in the usual course immediately. All other schools will also follow the directions in this order."
Case Title: In the matter of : Ms. Minakhi Mukherjee & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 130
The Calcutta High Court granted anticipatory bail to prominent youth leader and president of West Bengal Demorcatic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) Meenakshi Mukherjee in a case pertaining to the incident of alleged violence during a march in Howrah on February 26 to protest the murder of youth leader Anis Khan. Meenakshi and 16 others were arrested and slapped with attempt to murder charges for allegedly inciting violence during the protest to condemn student activist Anis Khan's murder. Khan was found dead at his home in Amta block in Howrah district in the early hours of February 19, 2022. Alleging that four persons had come to their house on Friday night donning police and civic volunteer uniforms, Khan's father has claimed that his son was pushed off the third floor of their house in Amta. A Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Bibhas Ranjan De ordered, "Considering the nature of injuries suffered and considering the gravity of the offence and the involvement of the petitioners therein, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners."
Case Title: Prafulla Mura v. The State of West Bengal & Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 131
The Calcutta High Court issued practice directions in order to ensure that the identity of victims of sexual offences including minor victims under the POCSO Act are not disclosed in the pleadings and other records of the Court. The directions were issued while adjudicating upon an appeal filed challenging an order of conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act wherein the appellant had arrayed the minor victim as a respondent describing her by name and also disclosing her father's name. A Bench comprising Justice Bivas Pattanayak and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that such a disclosure in the petition of appeal runs contrary to the provisions of Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act as well as Section 228A of the IPC. Opining that necessary amendments are required to be made to the rules of this Court to avoid such disclosure of identity of victims, the Court underscored, "In order to avoid illegal publication of identity and other particulars of victim of offences under sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB, 376E of the Indian Penal Code as well as minor victims in the pleadings and/or documents filed before this Court, necessary amendments are required to be made to the rules of this Court." Thus, the Court also ordered the Registrar General to place the matter before the Rule Committee of the Court for considering the issue of amendments of the rules of the Court so that the identity of victims of sexual offences including minor victims under POCSO Act are not disclosed in the pleadings and other records of the Court.
31. Hanskhali Gangrape & Murder: Calcutta HC Issues Orders For Witness Protection At State Expense
Case Title: Shaista Afreen and Others v. The State of West Bengal and Others
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 132
The Calcutta High Court vide order dated April 20 has allowed for the filing of a witness protection application before the competent authority as specified under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 to protect the family members of the victim in the Hanskhali gangrape and murder case wherein a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had been ordered into a week back. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj ordered, "Having regard to the nature of allegation which have been made in the application it is necessary to extend protection to the members of the family as also witnesses of the incident. Hence, we permit the filing of the witness protection application before the competent authority as specified in Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 and on receipt of such application the competent authority is directed to take a decision and pass appropriate order for witness protection, proportionate to the threat perception, in accordance with the Scheme, without any unnecessary delay." Opining that the State government should bear the expenses of the witness protection as may be directed by the competent authority, the Court ordered, "Considering the peculiar facts of the case we direct respondent State to bear the expenses of witness protection as may be directed by the competent authority."
Case Title: The State of West Bengal v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 133
The Calcutta High Court has recently ordered the transfer of investigation into explosions in Birbhum district to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) from the Crime Investigation Department (CID) of State of West Bengal by holding that the central agency has precedence in the investigation of scheduled offence. A Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Bivas Pattanayak vacated an earlier stay by a Single Judge on the NIA probe and directed the CID to cooperate with NIA and to transfer all documents related to its probe into the 2019 explosion in two residential houses in Birbhum if required. The Court ordered, "..we are inclined to vary the interim order passed earlier and direct subject to the result of the petition and without prejudice to rights and contentions of the parties, investigation of the aforesaid case be transferred and conducted by N.I.A. State Agency is directed to cooperate with N.I.A. in that regard and if required to transfer all documents pertaining to its investigation to the Central Agency in accordance with law." Opining that the powers of the Central agency are much wider than the State agency, the Court remarked, "Furthermore, investigation by Central Agency, whose powers are much wider than the State Agency, would be more effective and enure to the ends of justice. Hence, balance of convenience also lies in favour of variation/vacating of the interim direction."
Case Title: Manav Investment and Training Company Ltd v. DBS Bank India Ltd.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 134
The Calcutta High Court has recently underscored that the Court should not be used to prevent a loan giver from exercising his rightful legal claim against the borrower. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf was adjudicating upon an interlocutory application seeking injunction against the respondent bank from giving any effect to letters dated 23rd February, 2022 vide which the bank had invoked the pledge and had expressed its intention as a pawnee to dispose of the security under Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act). The Court had earlier passed an order in favour of the petitioner by opining that the notices dated July 17, 2021 previously issued by the respondent bank did not adhere to the requirements laid down under Section 176 of the Act. The Court had averred that the notices did not provide the petitioner with a clear intent of sale as is required under Section 176 and had further held that the phrase 'right to sale mentioned in the notices was insufficient and did not convey an intention to sale. Opining that the petitioner cannot be allowed to nitpick on the notices being issued by the respondent bank, Justice Saraf underscored, "The undisputed fact in the present case is that the petitioners have failed to pay back the amounts due to the respondent bank and is now thwarting each and every step being taken by the bank to obtain its legitimate outstanding dues. In my view, the attempts being made by the petitioner by nitpicking on the notices being issued by the respondent bank is only a ploy to avoid the harsh reality that loans are required to be paid back. The resultant consequences of failure to pay will have to necessarily follow and this court should not be used, rather abused, to prevent the loan giver from exercising his rightful legal claims against the borrower. The balance of convenience and inconvenience is also in favour of the respondent bank, and accordingly, I do not find this to be a fit case to interfere in any manner whatsoever."
Case Title: Anindya Sundar Das v. Union of India and other connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 135
The Calcutta High Court directed the State government to expeditiously decide an application for compensation moved by the family members of deceased BJP worker Abhijit Sarkar who was allegedly killed by TMC members during the violence that had allegedly taken place post the declaration of the West Bengal assembly elections in May 2021. The Court vide order dated August 19, 2021 had handed over to the CBI the investigation of cases related to murder, rape and crime against women whereas a SIT had been constituted to investigate other criminal cases related to post-poll violence. The parents of Sarkar had moved a plea before the Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj seeking compensation from the State as per the Court's earlier directions. The counsel appearing for the petitioner apprised the Court that a representation dated March 11, 2022 had been made before the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal and the Secretary, Department of Home and Hill Affairs regarding payment of compensation. However, it was averred that no response has been received on such a representation. Accordingly, the Court directed the State government to take a decision on such an application seeking compensation as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 2 months.
Case Title: Priyanka Tibrewal v. State of West Bengal and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 136
The Calcutta High Court constituted a three member committee to conduct an enquiry into the allegation that over 303 victims have been displaced due to the post-poll violence in West Bengal that had allegedly taken place post the declaration of the West Bengal assembly elections in May 2021. The Court vide order dated August 19, 2021 had handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the investigation of cases related to murder, rape and crime against women whereas a Special Investigation Team (SIT) had been constituted to investigate other criminal cases related to post-poll violence. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition by petitioner Priyanka Tibrewal wherein it had been submitted that over 303 victims had been displaced due to the alleged violence and had been subsequently prevented from returning to their respective houses and workplaces. On Wednesday, pursuant to the rival submissions, the Court constituted a three member committee comprising of the following persons, (i) a member/ nominee of the National Human Rights Commission; (ii) a member/ nominee of State Human Rights Commission; and (iii) Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority. The Court further directed the Committee to ensure that appropriate opportunity of hearing is given to the State government before it reaches to any conclusion. The Committee was further instructed to address the complaints of the alleged victims and conduct an enquiry into their right to return to their houses and workplaces.
36. Calcutta High Court Directs IPS Officer Damayanti Sen To Oversee Probe In Namkhana Rape Case Of WB
Case Title: Pallabi Chatterjee and Ors v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 137
The Calcutta High Court asked IPS officer Damayanti Sen to oversee the probe in the Namkhana rape case wherein a 40-year-old woman was reportedly gang-raped on April 8 by five men in West Bengal's Namkhana village and an attempt had also been made to pour kerosene inside the victim's private parts and set her ablaze. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakasha Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on Friday took on record the status report as well as the case diary pertaining to the investigation into the rape case. Pursuant to the perusal of the case diary and also the status report, the Court directed, "Having examined the case diary and considering the report in the form of the affidavit and also taking note of the allegations made and progress of investigation, we deem it proper that investigation in this case be carried out under the supervision of Damyanti Sen, Special Commissioner of Police." The Court however observed that in case the IPS officer has any difficulty in supervising the investigation, she will be at liberty to intimate the same to the Court on the next date of hearing. The Court also directed the State government to submit a further status report on the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on May 2.
Case Title: Pallabi Chatterjee and Ors v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 138
The Calcutta High Court on Friday directed IPS officer Parul Kush Jain to oversee the probe in the Pingla rape case wherein an alleged attempt to rape was made on a differently-abled woman by a local panchayat member said to have affiliation to the Trinamool Congress at Pingla in West Midnapore district on April 11. The IPS officer is currently posted as the Inspector General of Police (IGP) of the Traffic department of West Bengal. The direction was issued while adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking a CBI probe into 5 recent rape cases that are reported in various districts of West Bengal this month. Incidents of rape have been reported to have taken place at Netra and Namkhana villages in South 24 Parganas district, at Pingla in West Midnapore district, at a village near Santiniketan in Birbhum district and at Mainaguri of Jalpaiguri district in West Bengal in the last few weeks. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakasha Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on Friday took on record the status report as well as the case diary pertaining to the investigation into the rape case. Pursuant to the perusal of the case diary and the status report, the Court observed that the considering the nature of allegations made, the investigation into the rape case should be supervised by a senior lady police officer. Furthermore, the Chief Justice during the proceedings also orally remarked, "We feel that a local influential person is involved" while underscoring the need for the investigation to be overseen by a senior IPS officer.
Case Title: Haren Bagchi Biswas alias Harendranath Biswas v. Union of India
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 139
The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking directions to print images of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose on Indian currency notes. The plea had been moved by 94-year-old freedom fighter, one Haren Bagchi Biswas. The bench of Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj took into account the decision of the Madras High Court in the case K.K. Ramesh v. Union of India and Ors., wherein, finding no fault in Central Government and RBI's decision to retain only the image of Mahatma Gandhi and of no other personality in the currency notes, the High Court recently had dismissed a plea challenging Centre's rejection of a representation for printing the image of Nethaji Subash Chandra Bose on currency notes. "This Court is not underestimating the fight and the sacrifice made by Nethaji Subash Chandra Bose and other great leaders for freedom moment of this Country. There are many known heroes and unsung heroes. If everybody starts making such a claim there will not be an end", a Bench comprising Justices N. Kirubakaran and M. Duraiswamy of the Madras High Court had observed. Having regard to the above, the Court came to an opinion that no case for issuing the direction as prayed for in the present case was made out. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: Sukumar Ray v. M/s Indo-Industrial Services and Ors. A.P No. 70 of 2022
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 140
The High Court of Calcutta has held that a subsequent agreement entered into between the parties need not contain a separate arbitration clause if it is made only to extend the validity of the original agreement that contained an arbitration clause. The Single Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf has held that if the new agreement provides for a specific reference to the terms of the earlier agreement and does not contain any clause other than the extension of the validity of the original agreement then there is no requirement to have an arbitration clause in the new agreement. The Court further held that the arbitration clause contained in the original agreement would not come to an end due to efflux of time merely because the subsequent agreement does not have an arbitration clause.
40. Calcutta High Court Imposes ₹25K Cost On Party For Seeking Repeated Adjournments
Case Title: Bengal State Table Tennis Association & Ors. v Malda District Table Tennis Association & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 141
The Calcutta High Court imposed costs to the tune of Rs 25,000 on a party for seeking repeated adjournments. A Bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Kesang Doma Bhutia noted that the appellants had sought several adjournments. But despite the accommodating orders the Court had passed, they again sought an adjournment for the fourth time. "This is the fourth occasion when adjournment has been sought for by the appellants. We have passed several orders from 18.04.2022 to accommodate the appellants. At the time of third call today, adjournment is again sought for on behalf of the appellants. Since today is the last date of the Circuit bench, we are unable to keep the matter after recess owing to our respective Single Bench lists," the Court observed. Accordingly, the Bench imposed costs and ordered the appellants to pay Rs 25,000 to the District Legal Services Authorities, Jalpaiguri within a period of seven days.
Case Title: Soumendu Adhikari v. State of West Bengal
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 142
The Calcutta High Court directed Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), New Delhi to conduct a forensic audit of the CCTV cameras that were used during the recently concluded Contai Municipality elections. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj while reading out the operative portion of the order on Tuesday observed that notwithstanding the constitutional bar under Article 243-ZG (b) of the Constitution of India, such a direction is required in the 'larger public interest' and to uphold democratic principles."..we are of the opinion that not only to ascertain the compliance of earlier orders of this Court but in the larger public interest and to uphold democratic principles, it is necessary to get forensic audit of CCTV footage of Contai Municipal Election done", the Court underscored. Accordingly, the Court directed the State Election Commission to send the CCTV footage of Contai Municipal Election for forensic audit to CFSL, Delhi within 10 days
Case Title: In the matter of: Parimal Barui
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 143
The Calcutta High Court came down heavily on an Investigating Officer while adjudicating upon an anticipatory bail application in connection with a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). A Bench comprising # expressed strong reservations over the conduct of the concerned Investigation Officer after being apprised that the officer had refused to examine the petitioner in response to a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in the absence of the petitioner's identification proof. "An investigation is in progress. It is intriguing that the Investigating Officer requires the identification proof of the person appearing before him in response to a notice under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He is not aware of the person who is required to be interviewed thereunder in absence of his identification proof", the Court underscored. Further opining that the conduct of the Investigating Officer requires the attention of his superiors, the Court remarked, "The conduct of the Investigating Officer, requires attention of his superiors".
Case Title: Madhu Singh v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 144
The Calcutta High Court directed the Director General of Police, West Bengal to initiate departmental proceedings against concerned police officers for misleading the Court and further handed over the investigation to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), West Bengal. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha was adjudicating upon a case involving serious offences under Section 365 (kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person), Section 354B (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe) and other provisions of the IPC. The Court further expressed reservations over the fact that the concerned report had not been Superintendent of Police, Baruipur Police Station himself and accordingly remarked, "It is not however understood as to why the Superintendent of Police, Baruipur Police Station has not signed the report himself. If the Additional Superintendent of Police was signing the report on behalf of the Office of the Superintendent of Police, the same shall have to be indicated." Opining that departmental proceedings must be ignited against the Investigating Officer and other officers responsible for such a lapse in investigation, the Court ordered, "This Court is, therefore, of the view that the entire file as regards the conduct of investigation by ASI, Arnab Chakraborty must be looked into by a higher authority..The Director General of Police, West Bengal shall call for the records and consider drawing up of appropriate departmental proceeding against the ASI, Arnab Chakraborty and any other person that the Director General of Police, West Bengal may feel is responsible for misleading this Court."
Case Title: Indranil Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 145
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that an order of interim compensation awarded under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act) cannot be recovered from the estate of a deceased accused, who died before the conclusion of the trial. Justice Kausik Chanda observed that the order of interim compensation is dependent on the outcome of the trial and accordingly underscored, "There is no finality attached to such interim order of compensation and no right is crystallised in favour of the complainant by dint of such interim order of compensation. The order of interim compensation, which is passed in the aid of final compensation, will cease to exist when the trial comes to an end due to the death of the accused since in such eventuality there cannot be any scope to adjudicate the innocence or the guilt of the accused in the trial." The Court further opined that in the event of the death of an accused, compensation awarded under Section 138 of the Act can be recovered from the estate of a deceased accused however an interim compensation awarded under Section 143A of the Act cannot be recovered from the estate of a deceased accused.
Case Title: Subrata Kumar Samanta v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 146
The Calcutta High Court observed that West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited has the right to install electric polls on private land and can also take necessary action in respect of any property in the event it is not possible to take the electric connection in-question over an alternative passage. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed, "..this Court is of the view that the respondent no.5 is under no obligation to not install electric poles and can take necessary action in respect of any property in the event it is not possible to take the electric connection in-question over an alternative passage." However leave was granted to the appellant to approach the Distribution Company with a formal application for shifting the electric pole and it was further underscored that in such an event the appellant should be willing to deposit the entire shifting charges for installation of a new electric pole.
Case Title: Bidyut Kumar Mondal v. Pankaj Sarkar & Anr
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 147
The Calcutta High Court imposed costs to the tune of Rs 25,000 on an alleged contemnor for not taking steps for compliance of an earlier order for a period of 7 years despite a contempt application being filed back in 2015. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf also came down heavily on the practice of government authorities of not complying with orders of the Court for years on end and thereafter informing the Court that an appeal is to be filed whenever the Court presses for compliance of the order. "The malaise in the system of not challenging the orders, accepting the same and thereafter not complying with the same is seen in hundreds of matters that are being filed. The Authorities of the State choose not to comply with the order in blatant disregard of the orders passed by the High Court and drag their feet in the matter for years on end. When the Court presses for compliance of the order, the Court is informed that an appeal has either just been filed a few days back or is going to be filed immediately", the Court underscored. Depreciating the conduct of the government pleader for seeking an adjournment on this ground, the Court observed, "The present situation is akin to the above and the prayer of the Government Pleader seeking an adjournment in this matter is deprecated by this Court. The system requires change and unless costs are imposed upon the present alleged contemnor, I do not see any improvement taking place."
47. Calcutta High Court Allows 17 Yr Old Rape Victim To Undergo Medical Termination Of Pregnancy
Case Title: Rupa Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 148
The Calcutta High Court permitted a 17 year old rape victim to undergo medical termination of pregnancy after taking into consideration the report filed by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and the report of the concerned Medical Board. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha took on record the report filed by the CWC addressed to the concerned Public Prosecutor, West Bengal wherein it had been averred that the minor victim girl had expressed her desire to undergo medical termination of pregnancy. The veracity of the desire of the minor girl had also been confirmed by six officials including the Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee, Nadia. Permitting the minor victim to undergo medical termination of pregnancy, the Court directed, "In that view of the matter, subject to the verification of her health, afresh by the required number of qualified medical practitioners, the minor girl shall be permitted to undergo medical termination of pregnancy, under the care and guidance of her mother." The Court had previously directed the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH), Nadia to constitute a medical board to ascertain the physical and mental condition of the victim girl and also determine whether the continuation of pregnancy would in any way harm the victim or the foetus.
Case Title: Snigdha Datta (Basu) v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 149
The Calcutta High Court allowed a government school teacher to seek a transfer to a school nearer to her residence after taking into account the report filed by a Medical Board which had advised her to avoid long journeys owing to her health condition. Opining that the school teacher cannot be made to risk her life, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay underscored, "..it is observed that a lady teacher with specific advice of the doctors of a Medical Board of a Government Hospital to avoid journey, cannot be compelled to attend the school which is at a distance of 142 kilometers. To and fro journey is 284 kilometers. Even if the petitioner arranges an accommodation nearer to the school, it cannot be said that she will never come to her in-laws' house or her father's residence from the rented house in school area. At the same time going against the advice of the doctors of the Medical Board means taking risk of her life." Opining that her service period being less than 5 years cannot stand as an impediment in the way of her transfer, the Court observed, "In such a situation when the Medical Board in their report dated 25.08.2021 advised her to avoid journey, it is immaterial whether the petitioner is short of some months service from five years as on date. The petitioner has not been transferred till date and that is why I am considering the present tenure of her service, it is slightly below five years. However, when advise is to avoid journey after medical test by not an individual doctor but a Medical Board the service period cannot stand in the way for transfer."
Case Title: In the matter of Kapil Raj
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 150
The Calcutta High Court imposed a stay for 3 weeks on orders of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas wherein the Joint Director of Enforcement Directorate (ED) Kapil Raj had been directed to provide a voice sample to the Kolkata Police in connection with an audiotape leak case involving Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee. Pertinently, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju appearing on behalf of Raj submitted that the Kolkata Police had allegedly forged a copy of the impugned order before sending it to him. He apprised the Court that the impugned order had clearly stated that the voice sample of the concerned ED Official could be taken subject to consent given by the officer. Opining that the matter needs to be heard at length since a serious allegation has been levelled, Justice Jay Sengupta observed, "A perusal of the application for collection of voice sample of the ED Official renders it necessary to determine whether a case was made out for allowing such a prayer. Besides, a serious allegation has been leveled by the petitioner that an order passed by the learned Magistrate was forged. Therefore, the matter needs to be heard at length." Granting a stay on the impugned orders for a period of 3 weeks, the Court further directed, "The operation of the impugned orders, so far as they relate to the direction to collect voice sample of the ED Official, shall remain stayed till three weeks after the ensuing summer vacation."
Case Title: Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. v. Rajesh Kumar Sinha & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 151
The Calcutta High Court issued notices to the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary of the Transport Department and the Principal Secretary of the Finance Department of the Government of West Bengal in a petition seeking initiation of civil contempt in a matter pertaining to the implementation of a Pension Scheme for employees of the South Bengal State Transport Corporation (SBSTC). Justice Arindam Mukherjee ordered, "I direct issuance of Rule against Rajesh Kumar Sinha, the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government of West Bengal, Paribahan Bhawan, 12, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001; H.K. Dwivedi, the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal, having his office at "NABANNA", 325, Sarat Chatterjee Road, P.O. Shibpur, Howrah – 711102; and, Dr. Manoj Pant, the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal, having his office at "NABANNA", 325, Sarat Chatterjee Road, P.O. Shibpur, Howrah – 711102."
Case Title: Nur Afsar Mandal v. Visva Bharati and Ors
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 152
The Calcutta High Court set aside an order passed by the Registrar (Acting) of Visva-Bharati University discontinuing the services of a casual labourer on the ground of breach of the principles of natural justice. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya ordered, "The facts in the present case do not justify the impugned action. It is vigilante-justice without the factual bulwark to support it. This Court, being equally in the dark (as the petitioner) on the material forming the basis of the charge and the perceived exigency, is therefore unable to accept that the University had good grounds to summarily discontinue the services of the petitioner." Highlighting the need to preserve the principles of natural justice in order to protect constitutional ethos, the Court underscored, "Fair play in action is the law's most recognizable face, it evens the scales of injustice and strengthens its moral core. Subverting the rules of natural justice unsettles the very bedrock on which laws are built and shakes the constitutional foundation of equal protection of the laws. Attractive as it may sound, rough and ready justice serves only those who mete it out and not the person at the receiving end. Fair play is all about points and counter-points between two opposing parties and not a volley of unidirectional projectiles, ricocheting and bouncing in the dark echo- chamber of procedure."
Case Title: Ideal Unique Realtors Private Limited & Anr. versus Union of India & Ors.
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 153
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the spot memos issued to the assessee by the audit department and ruled them unenforceable since earlier proceedings initiated by the revenue department on the same issue were not completed. The Bench, consisting of Justices T. S. Sivagnanam and Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, observed that different wings of the same department had been issuing notices and summons to the assessee without taking any of the earlier proceedings to a logical end. The appellant/ assessee Ideal Unique Realtors Private Limited filed an appeal before the Calcutta High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Sr. Audit Officer in issuing a "spot memo" against the appellants. The appellants submitted before the High Court that the Director General of Goods and Services Tax, DGGI, Kolkata had issued summons to the appellants for which the appellants had submitted their reply. Thereafter, the DGGI had issued two more notices on the same issue. The appellants added that in response to the summons, the appellants had appeared before the authority and had submitted the requisite documents. The appellants contended that in spite of the same, the revenue officials had issued spot memos to the appellants on the same issue.
Important Developments
Case Title: Laxmi Tunga v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court took on record the preliminary report submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) pertaining to the probe into the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). The Court also directed the CBI to call for questioning all members of the High Powered Committee which had been constituted in 2016 by the Education Department of the West Bengal government to oversee the recruitment of close to 13,000 non-teaching staff in government-aided schools. After the panel was dissolved last year, allegations of irregular recruitment had surfaced. "I direct the CBI to take steps forthwith to call the above persons for asking questions in respect of this illegal appointment scam in public employment and they are to be called in the course of the day. When they will be questioned, will be decided by the CBI. I am not giving any guideline to that effect, but they are to be called in course of the day and they are directed to attend the office of the CBI as soon as they will be called by the CBI", the Court ordered.
Case Title: Purnima Kandu & Anr v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court took on record a detailed report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Purulia pertaining to the investigation into the death of former Congress councillor of Jhalda Municipality in Purulia, Tapan Kandu who was reportedly shot dead by miscreants on March 13. "A very detailed report has been submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Purulia and the same is taken on record. It appears that as on date two persons have been arrested. It further appears that Special Investigating Team involving C.I.D., West Bengal has also joined the investigation and is overseeing the same", the Court recorded in the order. Opining that the Court would consider whether the investigation requires to be transferred to the CBI on the next date of hearing, the Court observed, "The principal prayer of the petitioners for transfer of investigation from the State to the C.B.I. shall be considered on the adjourned date". Accordingly, the matter for listed for further hearing on April 4 at 2pm. The Court however underscored that the investigation by the State authorities may continue in the meantime.
Case Title: Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha v. Laxmi Tunga & ors
A Division Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta of the Calcutta High Court on Monday recused from hearing a batch of petitions pertaining to alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). This comes days after a single judge Bench of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay had passed scathing remarks against the Division Bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta. On Friday, a Division Bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee had stayed Justice Gangopadhyay's order directing the regional head of the CBI to call upon S.P. Sinha, former Advisor of the WBSSC in course of the day and start questioning him. The Division Bench had granted such an interim relief until the Regular Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta hears the matter on April 4. On Monday, the Regular Division Bench informed senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya representing the illegally recruited candidates that they were recusing from hearing all the cases pertaining to the alleged recruitment scam on their personal ground. "We are not inclined to take up the matter on our personal ground", Justice Harish Tandon orally remarked while speaking on behalf of the Bench.
Case Title: Sumitra Bhattacharyya v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court refused to order a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the gruesome incident of rape of a minor 11 year old girl at Matia in North 24-Parganas' Basirhat but granted leave to the petitioners to suggest the name of a high ranking police officer from the police department of West Bengal under whose supervision the investigation can be carried out. An 11-year-old schoolgirl, who went missing, was found unconscious from a near a park in Matia on March 25. Preliminary probe by police revealed that she was raped. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on the last date of hearing had directed Advocate General S.N Mookherjee to produce before the Court a report in the form of an affidavit containing the stage and status of investigation into the incident. The Bench had further called for the case diary to be filed before the Court on the next date of hearing. During the proceedings, one of the counsels for the petitioners vehemently argued for the investigation to be transferred to the CBI for an impartial probe. However, the Bench declined to issue such a direction at the present stage and instead remarked orally, "If at any point of time we feel that there is a deficiency in the investigation, we will duly consider the prayer". However, the Bench granted leave to the petitioners to suggest the name of a high ranking police officer under whose supervision, the investigation can be carried out.
In an unprecedented development, the Calcutta High Court on Monday witnessed various Benches either recusing or declining to hear a batch of appeals pertaining to the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). Proceedings pertaining to the recruitment scam have been in the spotlight ever since repeated orders for a CBI probe by a single judge bench of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay have been either stayed or set aside by a Division Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta. Justice Gangopadhyay on Wednesday had passed a scathing order against the direction issued by the Division Bench to accept an affidavit containing details of the assets possessed by S.P. Sinha, former Advisor of the School Service Commission in a 'sealed cover'. Recording serious displeasure against such an order by the Division Bench, Justice Gangopadhyay had observed, "I do not know what this court will do with a sealed cover in this proceeding when the hand of this appeal court has been tied by the above observation. I have been prevented from taking any consequential step on going through the said affidavit of assets." He had further opined that the 'highest degree of double standard' has been expressed by the Division Bench and that his hands have been tied from properly adjudicating the case. Subsequently, on Thursday, Justice Gangopadhyay had directed the regional head of the CBI to call upon S.P. Sinha, former Advisor of the WBSSC in course of the day and start questioning him. However, a Division Bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee had stayed such an order until the Regular Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta hears the matter on Monday i.e. on April 4. On Friday, Justice Gangopadhyay had further directed the CBI to call for questioning all members of the High Powered Committee which had been constituted in 2016 by the Education Department of the West Bengal government to oversee the recruitment of close to 13,000 non-teaching staff in government-aided schools. On Monday, the regular Bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Rabindranath Samanta informed senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya representing the alleged illegally recruited candidates that they were recusing from hearing all the cases pertaining to the alleged recruitment scam on their personal ground. "We are not inclined to take up the matter on our personal ground", Justice Harish Tandon orally remarked while speaking on behalf of the Bench.
Case Title: Laxmi Tunga & Ors v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a custodial interrogation of two members of the State appointed recruitment panel if the need arises. The direction was issued while adjudicating upon a batch of petitions pertaining to the alleged irregularities in the appointment of 'Group-D' (non-teaching staff) in sponsored Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) on the purported recommendation by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay on the last date of hearing had directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central) and the Commissioner of Police of Bidhan Nagar Police Commissionerate to ensure the presence of 4 members of the High Powered Committee which had been constituted by the State to oversee the recruitment of close to 13,000 non-teaching staff in government-aided schools in the CBI office by 4 pm on Monday. Opining that Sarkar played a 'very important' role in the scam, the Court ordered, "In my view he played an extremely important role in the whole scam as in the whole scam recommendations were made and appointments were given in vacancies, which were beyond the declared vacancy list. This aspect is to be thoroughly investigated. Mr. Sarkar is directed to reply all the questions of CBI properly and correctly. I direct the CBI to register a case in this matter so that they can take all steps required in this matter." Justice Gangopadhyay further ordered that CBI should also further interrogate S.P. Sinha, former Advisor of the School Service Commission and the Convenor of the Five-Member Committee and accordingly ordered the Officer-in-Charge of the Survey Park Police Station to ensure the presence of Sinha before CBI by 3 p.m on Tuesday. "It is submitted by Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya on behalf of Mr. S. P. Sinha that the committee constituted by the court has called him today at 1 p.m. Whatever be the notice and whatever be the order of the committee, he must be present before CBI by 3 p.m. for further interrogation. CBI should start interrogating him from the point they stopped in respect of Mr. S. P. Sinha. If CBI thinks, they can start custodial interrogation of Mr. S. P. Sinha", the Court ordered further.
The State government moved a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court against the order for a CBI probe into the death of former Congress councillor of Jhalda Municipality in Purulia, Tapan Kandu who was reportedly shot dead by miscreants on March 13. According to reports, Congress councillor Tapan Kandu and TMC's Anupam Dutta were shot dead on March 13 in separate incidents in Jhalda area of Purulia and Panihati in North 24 Parganas, respectively. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha in the impugned order had ordered for a CBI probe by opining that there is a need for instilling faith of the public at large and that given the gravity and politically sensitive nature of the crime the public needs to see that the Rule of Law is still alive and functioning. On Thursday, the counsel appearing for the State government moved a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj seeking for an early listing of the appeal so that the hearing could take place expeditiously. "At the very threshold, my Lords, there is some urgency", the counsel appearing for the State government submitted. On the contrary, the opposing counsel averred that there is no urgency in the matter and that adverse inferences had been drawn against the Inspector-In-Charge of the concerned police station which he alleged the State government was trying to protect.Pursuant to the submissions, the Chief Justice orally remarked, "Give the (mentioning) slip, we will consider".
8. YJ Dastoor Resigns As Additional Solicitor General At Calcutta High Court
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) at Calcutta High Court YJ Dastoor has resigned from his post. In a letter written to Law Minister Kiren Rijiju on Monday, he said that he is resigning from the post. However, the letter does not contain any reasons for the resignation. Dastoor had been appointed as the Additional Solicitor General on June 30, 2020 for a period of 3 years. He has been recently involved in various high profile cases wherein several Benches of the High Court have ordered for investigations to be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Case Title: Anindya Sundar Das v. State of West Bengal and Ors
The Calcutta High Court sought the State government's response in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed seeking a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the murder of Panihati Trinamool Congress (TMC) councillor Anupam Dutta. According to reports, Councillor Anupam Dutta was shot dead on March 12 when he had gone to take stock of work on a park in his area. CCTV footage of the area shows Dutta riding pillion on a two-wheeler when he was shot at point-blank rage. The assailant was seen wearing a blue and white striped T-shirt besides a mask. In a separate incident on the same day, in Purulia district, four-time Congress councillor of Jhalda municipality, Tapan Kundu, was shot dead by unidentified motorcycle-borne persons when he went for a walk near his residence. The High Court had subsequently ordered a CBI probe into the incident by opining that there is a need for instilling faith of the public at large. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was apprised by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that a CBI probe in necessary into the brutal murder of councillor Anupam Dutta. The Bench was further informed that a Single Judge Bench had already ordered a CBI probe into the death of former Congress councillor of Jhalda Municipality in Purulia, Tapan Kandu. Pursuant to the submissions by the concerned counsel, the Bench ordered the State government to obtain instructions in the matter within a period of 1 week and listed the matter for further hearing on May 2.
Case Title: Aminuddin Khan v. Union of India and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court sought response from the State government as well as the Union of India in a batch of petitions filed by the legal heirs of those who died due to the alleged firing by CISF personnel on April 10, 2021, at Sitalkuchi in Cooch Behar district during the West Bengal Assembly polls. The petitions alleged that the incident was a result of police firing in the course of electioneering. As a result, an independent probe into the matter had been sought. Consequently, the investigation had been transferred to West Bengal's Criminal Investigation Department (CID). A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was apprised that the family members of the victims have filed petitions pertaining to the incident seeking various reliefs including compensation from the State. The Court dismissed the PILs as non-maintainable on account of the fact that the legal heirs of the victims had already filed petitions before the Court seeking relief. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, the Court directed the State government as well as the Union of India to file their affidavits-in-opposition within a period of 4 weeks. Any reply by the petitioners were ordered to be filed within 1 week thereafter. The matter is slated for further hearing on June 13.
Case Title: Pallabi Chatterjee and Ors v. State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday directed the State government to submit the case diary along with a status report pertaining to the investigation into the 5 recent rape cases that are reported in various districts of West Bengal this month. Incidents of rape have been reported to have taken place at Netra and Namkhana villages in South 24 Parganas district, at Pingla in West Midnapore district, at a village near Santiniketan in Birbhum district and at Mainaguri of Jalpaiguri district in West Bengal in the last few weeks. The direction was issued by the Court while adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by women advocates of the High Court seeking a probe by the CBI or any other independent agency into the rape cases. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakasha Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on Tuesday noted that most of the rape cases involved minors. Considering the nature of the incidents and the allegations levelled, Bench directed Advocate General S.N Mookherjee appearing on behalf of the State government to produce a report relating to the status of the investigation and also the case diary on the next date of hearing. The Court also ordered the competent authorities to extend full protection to the victims and the witnesses in the rape cases in the meantime.
Case Title: Priyanka Tibrewal v. State of West Bengal and Ors
The Calcutta High Court directed the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the West Bengal Human Rights Commission (WBHRC) to obtain instructions as to whether they are in a position to conduct an enquiry into the allegation that close to 303 victims have been displaced due to the post-poll violence in West Bengal and have been obstructed from returning to their houses and workplaces. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a prayer put forward by petitioner Priyanka Tibrewal to constitute a committee of two Members, one from the NHRC and the State Human Rights Commission to address the complaints of 303 alleged victims of post-poll violence. On Tuesday, the Court directed the counsels appearing for the NHRC and the WBHRC to make their stand clear on the next date of hearing as to whether they are in a position to form the aforementioned Committee and conduct and enquiry into the allegations.
Case Title: Salem Khan v. State of West Bengal and Ors.
The Calcutta High Court took on record the report filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) pertaining to the investigation into the death of student activist Anis Khan. Anish Khan was found dead at his home in Amta block in Howrah district in the early hours of Saturday, February 19, 2022 under mysterious circumstances. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha took on record the detailed 82-page report filed by the State government indicating the steps taken by the SIT towards the investigation. Upon perusal of the report, the Court noted that the investigation into the case is nearing completion. The Court further directed Advocate General S.N Mookherjee to serve a copy of the SIT report to senior counsel Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya appearing on behalf of the petitioner. It was however underscored that confidentiality of the report must be maintained in order to ensure that the ongoing investigation is not jeopardised in any manner. "Let a copy of such report be made available to Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. The confidentiality of the report must continue to be maintained as discussed in the Court in the presence of all counsels. Let the report be resealed and retained in the records of this Court", the order read. Pertinently, the Court took cognisance of certain disparaging remarks that were reportedly made by the petitioner (father of the deceased) against the Court which were subsequently circulated in social media. The petitioner had reportedly remarked that Justice Mantha had not conducted a hearing of the case yesterday due to political pressure from the Chief Minister. Accordingly, Justice Mantha indicated that he was inclined to release the matter. However, the Advocate General as well as senior counsel Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya prayed before the judge to not recuse from hearing the case. "Mr. Bhattacharya has accepted the directions of this Court that an apology should be forthcoming on affidavit from his client. Let such affidavit be filed before this Court on the adjourned date", the Court ordered.
Case Title: Anindya Sundar Das v. Union of India and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court took on record the latest status report filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) pertaining to the progress of the investigation with regards to cases of violence that had allegedly taken place post the declaration of the West Bengal assembly elections in May 2021. The Court vide order dated August 19, 2021 had handed over to the CBI the investigation of cases related to murder, rape and crime against women whereas a SIT had been constituted to investigate other criminal cases related to post-poll violence. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj also sought the State government's response on a plea seeking issuance of directions to the State government to formulate a policy for granting compensation to the victims of post poll violence so that such victims can be given compensation in a time bound manner. The Court also took on record the fifth status report filed by the CBI. The Court was apprised by the counsel appearing for the CBI that as on April 16, 58 cases have been registered and out of the 58 cases, 47 of them have been received from the NHRC. The counsel for the SIT also handed over the latest status report to the Court and further averred that as on April 18, 35 cases have been received from the CBI for investigation. The Court was also apprised that in 31 cases chargesheets have been filed, in 1 case closure report has been filed and that 1 case is under investigation. The Court accordingly directed both the CBI and the SIT to file further status reports on the next date of hearing.
15. Essential To Protect Witness Identity: Calcutta High Court Tells State In PIL Over 4 Rape Cases
Case Title: Sumitra Bhattacharyya v. State of West Bengal and other connected matters
The Calcutta High Court took on record the status report filed by the State government pertaining to the investigation into each of the rape cases in Deganga, Matia, Ingrejbazar and Banshdroni in West Bengal. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Srivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj had earlier asked IPS officer Damayanti Sen to oversee the probe in the rape cases. The Bench had observed that considering the nature of the incidents and the allegations made, a responsible senior lady police officer should be appointed to supervise the investigation. On Wednesday, after perusal of the status report, the Bench noted that the investigation is being carried out under Sen's supervision, as per the earlier directions of the Court. The Court further instructed the Advocate General to supply a copy of the status report to the petitioner after redacting the names of the witnesses, family members and victims within a period of 2 days. The Court underscored that it is essential to protect the identity of the witnesses. The petitioner was further ordered to file a reply to the status report within a week thereafter.
The Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for appointing five Additional Judges of Calcutta High Court as Permanent Judges of the Court. Following are the Judges whose proposal for appointment has been approved: 1. Ms. Justice Kesang Doma Bhutia, 2. Shri Justice Rabindranath Samanta, 3. Shri Justice Sugato Majumdar, 4. Shri Justice Bivas Pattanayak, and 5. Shri Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee.
Case Title: Rokan Ali Molla v. State of West Bengal and Ors.
The Calcutta High Court sought the State government's response in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition questioning the conduct of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in extending compensation and government jobs for the kin of the victims of the violence that erupted in Birbhum district of West Bengal. The incident, allegedly in retaliation to the murder of local All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Bhadu Sheikh, claimed 8 lives including that of two children. The Court vide order dated March 25 had ordered a CBI investigation into the incident of violence. Thereafter, on April 8, the Court had also directed the CBI to probe into the murder of TMC leader Bhadu Sheikh, opining that the material on record prima facie suggests that there is a close relationship and linkage between the two incidents. Senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya appearing for the petitioner submitted before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj that the Chief Minister had attempted to 'influence witnesses' by handing over government jobs and compensation to the family members of the victims. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, the Court directed the State government to file an affidavit-in-opposition within 4 weeks. Any reply to such an affidavit-in-opposition was ordered to be filed by the petitioner within 2 weeks.
Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari v. The Hon'ble Speaker, West Bengal Legislative Assembly
The Calcutta High Court sought sought response from West Bengal Assembly Speaker Biman Bandyopadhyay in a writ petition challenging his decision to suspend BJP MLA and Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari from the Assembly for future sessions this year. Five BJP MLAs, including Suvendu Adhikari, were suspended by the West Bengal Assembly Speaker on March 28 for their alleged unruly conduct in the House. Adhikari, along with BJP legislators Dipak Burman, Shankar Ghosh, Manoj Tigga and Narahari Mahato, were suspended by the Speaker for future sessions this year. The Assembly had witnessed pandemonium on the day as ruling TMC and BJP MLAs scuffled after saffron party legislators demanded a statement by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee over the "worsening" law and order situation in the state. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha was apprised by senior counsel Jaydip Kar appearing for Adhikari that Adhikari and 5 other BJP MLAs were communicated vide an order on March 31 that they had been suspended by the Speaker from the Assembly for the remaining period of this session. Taking cognisance of the grievance raised, the Court directed Advocate General S.N Mookherjee to file an affidavit-in-opposition on or before May 2. Any reply was directed to be filed on or before May 4. The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 5 at 10:30 am.
Case Title: Salem Khan v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court directed the father of deceased student leader Anis Khan to file an affidavit raising objections to the report filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) pertaining to the investigation into the death of student activist Anis Khan. Anish Khan was found dead at his home in Amta block in Howrah district in the early hours of Saturday, February 19, 2022 under mysterious circumstances. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha on the last date of hearing had taken on record a detailed 82-page report filed by the State government indicating the steps taken by the SIT towards the investigation. Senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya appearing for the petitioner apprised the Court that the SIT report can best be described as an enquiry report and is not an investigation report. The Court opined that the State must be notified as to the exact grounds on which the investigation report is being challenged and accordingly directed the petitioner to file an affidavit seeking exception to the investigation report filed by the SIT within a period of 1 week. "Let a formal exception be taken on affidavit by Mr. Bhattacharya's client in respect of the investigation report and the same should be filed within a period of one week from date with prior service on the learned Advocate General", the Court directed.
Case Title: Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. Union of India and Ors
The Calcutta High Court directed the Centre to file a report in a sealed cover on the investigation into the incident of mid-air turbulence experienced by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's chartered flight on March 4. On March 4, Banerjee was returning to Kolkata from Varanasi after an election campaign. She boarded a chartered flight but faced air turbulence just before landing at the Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International airport. The Chief Minister reportedly suffered injuries in her back after the incident subsequent to which the doctors had advised her to take rest. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajrashi Bharadwaj was adjudicating upon a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking a probe into the incident.Accordingly, the Court directed the Centre to file a report of the Central Security Agency in a sealed cover containing details of the probe into the alleged incident on the next date of hearing which is slated to take place on July 18.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition has been filed in the Calcutta High Court seeking a probe by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the incident of crude bomb blast in West Bengal's Malda district on Sunday. Five school children were reportedly injured after the crude bombs they were playing with, mistaking those for balls, exploded in Kaliachak's Gopalnagar village close to the India-Bangladesh border on Sunday. The concerned counsel mentioned the matter before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj on Tuesday seeking leave to file the PIL. The Court was also apprised that the affected children are merely 4-5 years old and that they have been critically injured as a result of the blast. It was further averred that the incident falls within the category of a 'scheduled offence' under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 and thus a probe by the NIA was also sought. Pursuant to the submission, the Chief Justice orally remarked, "Give your mentioning slip, we will consider". The matter is likely to be heard sometime this week.
Law Clerks-cum-Research Assistants of the Calcutta High Court have written to Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava seeking enhanced pay structure. The letter averred that prices of essential commodities are on a steep hike and that they do not receive anything by way of inflation rebate. It was also underscored that as contractual employees, they have to sustain on their salaries that have remained stagnant for the past 6 years. It may be noted that the pay structure for Law Clerk-cum-Research Assistants at the Calcutta High Court currently stands at Rs 35,000 per month. "Your Lordship is well aware that prices of essential commodities are on a steep hike and that we do not receive anything by way of inflation rebate. As contractual employees we have to subsist only on our salary which is fixed/stagnant for the last six years", the letter reads.
23. Centre Notifies Appointment Of Five Additional Judges Of Calcutta High Court As Permanent Judges
The Central Government on Wednesday notified the appointment of five Additional Judges of Calcutta High Court as Permanent Judges of the Court. They are as follows- Justice Kesang Doma Bhutia, Justice Rabindranath Samanta, Justice Sugato Majumdar, Justice Bivas Pattanayak and Justice Ananda Kumar Mukherjee. The Supreme Court Collegium had approved the proposal for appointing the five Additional Judges of Calcutta High Court as Permanent Judges of the Court vide notification dated 19th April, 2022.
Case Title: XYZ, the victim minor and disabled child through his father v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
The Calcutta High Court directed the concerned State authorities to apprise the Court about the steps taken in the investigation of a case pertaining to the torture inflicted upon an autistic minor child while he was in the care and custody of a safe home in Durgapur, West Bengal. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha was apprised by the father of the minor victim that despite a complaint being registered dated June 12, 2019 addressed to Aurobindo Police Station, Durgapur, the FIR has not been registered nor have any consequent steps been taken. In the complaint, the father had alleged that his minor autistic child had been tortured and had also faced atrocities while he was in the care and custody of the Happy Home for Handicapped, Durgapur. Directing the concerned authorities to apprise the Court about the steps taken so far in addressing the complaint, the Court observed, "Let instructions be taken on behalf of the respondents to indicate what are steps taken pursuant to the complaint of the writ petitioner."
