Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: June 2024
Srinjoy Das
2 July 2024 8:22 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEXAnkit Kumar Agarwal Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Taltala Charge & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 137Dr. Rathin Chakraborty Vs. The Election Commission of India and Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 138Union Of India & Anr. Vs M/S Ramswarup Lohh Udyog & Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 139Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9, Kolkata Vs. Bina...
NOMINAL INDEX
Ankit Kumar Agarwal Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Taltala Charge & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 137
Dr. Rathin Chakraborty Vs. The Election Commission of India and Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 138
Union Of India & Anr. Vs M/S Ramswarup Lohh Udyog & Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 139
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9, Kolkata Vs. Bina Gupta Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 140
Sri Kunal Chandra Sen vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 141
THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR VS NATIONAL RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION OF INDIA AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 142
Mr. Birendra Bhagat vs. Arch Infra Properties Private Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 143
Bharati Tamang v Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 144
Mrinal Barik -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 145
PEOPLE UNITED FOR BETTER LIVING IN CALCUTTA (PUBLIC) VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 146
Dabur India Limited vs Dhruv Rathee And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 147
Fiona Majumdar -vs- The Union of India & ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 148
In the matter of: Christian Mac Durand 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 149
Saila Ghosh Versus State of West Bengal 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 150
VHP Dakshinbanga v Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 151
Uphealth Holdings, INC. vs Dr. Syed Sabahat Azim & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 152
ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS
Case Title: Ankit Kumar Agarwal Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Taltala Charge & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 137
The Calcutta High Court has held that ignoring GSTR-9 causes prejudice to taxpayers's rights when errors committed are revenue neutral.
The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority, viz., the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Taltala, and New Market Charge, to consider the submissions made by the assessee, afford an opportunity of personal hearing, and examine the annual return filed in GSTR-9.
Case: Dr. Rathin Chakraborty Vs. The Election Commission of India and Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 138
The Calcutta High Court has directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to ensure that counting staff for Lok Sabha polls 2024 are appointed according to the guidelines prescribed by the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of West Bengal.
Votes cast in the Lok Sabha polls are slated to be counted across the country on Tuesday, 4th June 2024, from 8 am onwards.
A plea was moved by Rathin Chakraborty, BJP's candidate from the Howrah constituency, who sought direction on the ECI not to engage contractual, casual, Anganwadi workers, para teachers and civic volunteers for the counting of votes in Lok Sabha elections 2024.
Justice Amrita Sinha directed the ECI to ensure that the counting staff was appointed strictly according to guidelines prescribed by the CEO of West Bengal.
Case Title: Union Of India & Anr. Vs M/S Ramswarup Lohh Udyog & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 139
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sugato Majumdar held that after the insolvency proceeding is over and the resolution plan is duly approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, the corporate entity starts with a clean slate on rejuvenation.
The High Court held that once insolvency proceedings are concluded and a corporate resolution plan is approved, the affected companies commence operations with a clean slate (referred to Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P.) Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd, Sirpur Paper Mills Limited vs. I.K. Merchants Pvt. Ltd, CoC of Essar Steel India Limited through Authorised Signatory vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors, India Resurgence ARC Pvt. Ltd. vs. Amit Metaliks Ltd. & Anr and Innovative Industries Limited vs. ICICI Bank & Anr.)
Case Title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9, Kolkata Vs. Bina Gupta
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 140
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, as the AO failed to make a proper inquiry on the bogus claim of long-term capital gain (LTCG) by the sale of shares.
The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has observed that in the order under Section 263 of the Act, which shows that the PCIT has applied its mind, it came to the prima facie conclusion that the assessing officer should have treated the entire credit as bogus and added back the same under Section 263 of the Act, rejecting the claim for exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, PCIT has not solely proceeded based on the report of the assessing officer, but on perusal of the report, it has examined the facts.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 141
Case Name : Sri Kunal Chandra Sen vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Aniruddha Roy, while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Sri Kunal Chandra Sen vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., held that the state cannot use public interest and accountability as an excuse to indefinitely delay the release of employees' pensions.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 142
Case: THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR VS NATIONAL RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION OF INDIA AND ORS
The Calcutta High Court has upheld an order passed by a single bench which had held that hookah bars across the state of West Bengal could not be shut down pursuant to the court's orders until the state government enacted a law banning their operation.
A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya upheld an earlier order passed by a bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and dismissed the present appeal by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC).
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 143
Case Title: Mr. Birendra Bhagat vs. Arch Infra Properties Private Limited
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that a clause laying down the settlement of the dispute by an expert cannot be said to be an arbitration clause. The bench held that an arbitral tribunal arrives at its decision on the evidence and submissions of the parties and must apply the law.
It held that an expert, unless it is agreed otherwise, makes his own enquiries applies his own expertise and decides how to resolve a problem or a dispute or difference. It held such clauses do not reflect the intention of the parties to submit to the jurisdiction of an independent arbitrator.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 144
Case: Bharati Tamang v Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court has recently directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to reinstate Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM) leader Bimal Gurung in a 2010 murder case of Madan Tamang. who was a leader of the All India Gorkha League.
Tamang, who was vocally opposed to the violent means and corruption in the GJM, was brutally hacked to death in 2010 when members of the GJM stormed his party's gathering and attacked those present with 'khukris' and sticks. Tamang was brutally stabbed and later died in hospital.
A single-judge bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta set aside an order of the trial court which had discharged Gurung as an accused in the 2010 murder case, in an appeal by Tamang's widow.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 145
Case: Mrinal Barik -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors.
In a landmark development, the Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal government to ensure 1% reservation for all transgender persons in public employment in the State, in accordance with the Supreme Court's NALSA guidelines.
A single bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha held:
This Court, however, notes that in terms of paragraph 135 (3) in the National Legal Service Authority Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2014) reservation has not yet been made in the State for transgender persons. In those circumstances, this Court directs the Chief Secretary of the Government of West Bengal to ensure 1% reservation for the category of persons mentioned in the NALSA case in all public employment in the State.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 146
Case: PEOPLE UNITED FOR BETTER LIVING IN CALCUTTA (PUBLIC) VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
The Calcutta High Court has declined a plea by the “People United For Better Living in Kolkata (public)” (petitioners) seeking to halt all construction work for a metro station to be constructed in Kolkata's Maidan area due to the uprooting of around 700 trees in the area adjoining Victoria Memorial.
The petitioners sought to stop the Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL) from continuing its construction work and call for a review of the proposed project by independent experts and to examine and submit an expert report on the feasibility of transplanting the trees. The petitioners contended that from various news reports, they came to understand that 700 trees in the Maidan area are to be transplanted, 500 trees will have to be removed to make way for permanent structures and additionally 200 trees will be transplanted to allow movement of trailers and construction machinery like trains etc.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 147
Case Title: Dabur India Limited vs Dhruv Rathee And Ors.
In a recent development in the dispute between Dabur India Limited and Dhruv Rathee, Rathee has proposed to Calcutta High Court to settle the dispute amicably. The celebrated YouTube influencer, Rathee has agreed to either blur or replace the packaging resembling Dabur's 'Real' juice with generic fruit juice packaging in the disputed video without prejudice to his rights and contentions, including Rathee's right to freedom of speech and expression and to make fair comment.
The dispute before Justice Arindam Mukherjee of the Calcutta High Court centred around allegations by Dabur India Limited concerning references to its 'REAL' juice product in Rathee's video. The proceedings took a turn during a hearing on February 29, 2024, when Rathee proposed to blur images resembling Dabur's 'Real Juice' packet in the disputed video.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 148
Case: Fiona Majumdar -vs- The Union of India & ors.
The Calcutta High Court on Friday asked a candidate who had approached the Court for a re-test due to having lost around 1.5 hours of her exam as a result of a torn OMR sheet, to approach the Supreme Court.
A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta held:
It is an admitted fact that there was some damage in the OMR sheet for which the petitioner was not to be blamed. As has now been clarified by the learned counsel for the NTA that if an appropriate case is made out or if there is an order passed by a Court, the authorities can retest a candidate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court is in seisin of matters concerning compensation for loss of time during examination and has made certain findings in an application. The petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 149
Case: In the matter of: Christian Mac Durand
The Calcutta High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri has quashed proceedings under the Foreigners Act, against a Swiss tourist who entered India without a valid arrival stamp on his passport. The tourist was booked under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.
In quashing the case while holding the petitioner's actions to be a bona fide mistake, a single bench of Justice Bivas Pattanayak held:
"During investigation no such mala fide intention of the petitioner transpired, save and except that the Passport was bereft of arrival stamp. From the materials placed before this Court, it is found that the case has resulted out of a bona fide mistake of the petitioner. In view of the above, the act of petitioner is protected by Section 15 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 which provides that no suit prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under the Act."
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 150
Case Title: Saila Ghosh Versus State of West Bengal
The Calcutta High Court, while dismissing the appeal of the assessee, upheld the 50% waiver of the interest on property tax.
The bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Gaurang Kanth has observed that the bills claiming enhanced property tax had not been raised during the arrears period are wholly unfounded, and the appellant ought not to be permitted to raise them at the appellate stage.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 151
Case: VHP Dakshinbanga v Union of India
The Calcutta High Court has declined to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, for making allegedly objectionable remarks against a monk during her election rally for the recently concluded Lok Sabha polls.
While dismissing the plea, a division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya remarked:
"This is an old story...we have got better work to do, we hope you (counsel for petitioner) have got better work to do. You are needed in the other courts, to get relief for your clients."
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 152
Case Title: Uphealth Holdings, INC. vs Dr. Syed Sabahat Azim & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court single judge bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that without a comprehensive cross-border insolvency framework, Indian courts do not recognize or enforce moratorium orders from non-reciprocating countries, such as the U.S., and thus are not obligated to stay ongoing suits due to such foreign proceedings.
