Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 09 September To 15 September, 2024
Srinjoy Das
16 Sept 2024 1:42 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEXBaid Power Services Private Limited vs The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 208JATIYATABADI AYINJIBI COUNCIL AND ANR. VS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 209Tata Communications Limited Vs Rudrapriya Constructions LLP and Anr. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 210Tapan Kumar Samaddar Vs Sagar Jagdish...
NOMINAL INDEX
Baid Power Services Private Limited vs The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 208
JATIYATABADI AYINJIBI COUNCIL AND ANR. VS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 209
Tata Communications Limited Vs Rudrapriya Constructions LLP and Anr. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 210
Tapan Kumar Samaddar Vs Sagar Jagdish Daryani And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 211
Manik Bhattacharya v State of West Bengal Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 212
The Secretary Ganaudyog Bazar Unnayan and Service Co-operative Society Limited vs Iris Health Services Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 213
Gita Refractories Pvt Ltd Vs Tuaman Engineering Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 214
Case Title: Baid Power Services Private Limited vs The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 208
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the time spent in a writ petition on the same cause of action can be excluded from the limitation period for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case: JATIYATABADI AYINJIBI COUNCIL AND ANR. VS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 209
The Calcutta High Court division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking the implementation of various protective measures for advocates such as the Advocates Protection Act, which would provide safeguards for advocates to ensure their ability to perform their professional duties without fear or violence or harassment.
The petitioner also sought protection to establish a dedicated monitoring committee or task force to oversee the implementation of the guidelines. and a direction to immediately install and maintain functional CCTV cameras in all the critical areas and to direct the authorities to establish a dedicated cell or mechanism for the prompt registration and investigation of complaints related to threats, harassment or intimidation of advocates.
Case Title: Tata Communications Limited Vs Rudrapriya Constructions LLP and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 210
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur has held that if a deed of assignment is properly interpreted as being interconnected and related to the original lease deed containing an arbitration clause, then the parties intended for the arbitration clause to be included in the deed of assignment.
The bench held that interrelationship was not merely superficial but indicative of a deliberate and mutual intent between the parties to incorporate certain terms from the initial lease deed into the new agreement.
Case Title: Tapan Kumar Samaddar Vs Sagar Jagdish Daryani And Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 211
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that when the total monthly payable amount surpasses the threshold for invoking the provisions of the Rent Control Act, the dispute becomes subject to arbitration if the lease agreement contains an arbitration clause.
Further, the bench held that in a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court is not permitted to examine the merits of the disputes between the parties.
Case: Manik Bhattacharya v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 212
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader and former MLA Manik Bhattacharya, accused in the cash-for-jobs recruitment scam case. Notably, two earlier pleas for bail by Bhattacharya had been dismissed by the court.
A single bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh relied on the Supreme Court's order in Manish Sisodia's case and held:
As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again, prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial and in such a case Article 21 applies irrespective of the seriousness of the crime. With regard to the apprehension of the petitioner influencing the witnesses, stringent conditions can be imposed upon him to address the concern. The attendance of the petitioner may also be secured by imposing stringent conditions. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent to his credit and no other criminal case except the present one is pending against him.
Composite Reference Can't Be Made Of Disparate Causes Of Action: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: The Secretary Ganaudyog Bazar Unnayan and Service Co-operative Society Limited vs Iris Health Services Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 213
The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that composite reference to an Arbitral Tribunal cannot be made for disparate causes of action in different agreements with different parties as it contravenes the principles of privity, confidentiality, and party autonomy.
Case Title: Gita Refractories Pvt Ltd Vs Tuaman Engineering Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 214
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that Section 18 of the MSME Act does not create any substantive rights or liabilities but simply offers an alternative method for resolving disputes outside of court proceedings.
The bench held that if a party involved in a dispute chooses to pursue arbitration independently under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, the MSME Act does not restrict the claimant from doing so.
