Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: 11th November To 17th November, 2024
Srinjoy Das
18 Nov 2024 3:44 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
MINTECH GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 238
Rahul Amin @ Rahul Haque -Vs- The State of West Bengal Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 239
SANDIP GHOSH VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 240
Debal Banerjee @ Debdal Banerjee @ Debdulal Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 241
Biswanath Murmu-Vs-The State of West Bengal Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 242
Gopal Adhikary & Ors. -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 243
Rajesh Kewat Managing Director, Fast Info Legal Services Private Limited Versus The State of West Bengal & Another Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 244
Dr. Shiuli Mukherjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 245
Arun Uday Paul Chowdhury -Vs-The State of West Bengal & Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 246
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, Kolkata Vs M/S. Delta Dealers Private Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 247
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 2 Kolkata Vs Gpt Sons Pvt Ltd Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 248
ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS
Case Title: MINTECH GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED – CEMENTDIVISION
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 238
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya affirmed that there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that if there is a perversity in the award insofar as the non-consideration of vital evidence is concerned, the same tantamounts to violation of the fundamental policy of Indian Law as well as gives rise to a patent illegality, which is a sufficient ground for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Case: Rahul Amin @ Rahul Haque -Vs- The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 239
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction of an accused who was sentenced under Section 363 of the IPC for the offence of kidnapping a 15-year-old girl who was returning from school with her father.
On her way home, she passed a Maruti car parked on the road. The accused who was sitting inside the car with other men asked his daughter to stop and come inside the car. When she refused, they forced her inside and drove to Burdwan.
The father stated that the accused used to work with the complainant's brother as a laborer and would often visit their house and was thus acquainted with the members of their family.
In upholding the conviction, but releasing the accused due to time already served, a single bench of Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay held:
The consent of the victim is immaterial and the subsisting family bond cannot be an excuse for an escape of the victim from the parental custody at the pretext or behest of pleasant and affable relationship or to justify an act of removing a minor from the custody of her legal guardian and further does not absolve the appellant from being indicted of the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case: SANDIP GHOSH VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 240
The Calcutta High Court has declined to hear a plea for bail moved by former principal of RG Kar Medical College and Hospital Sandip Ghosh, who has been arrested by the CBI in connection with alleged financial irregularities at the college, as well as the rape and murder of a trainee doctor on the college campus.
A single bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh directed Ghosh to approach the trial court seeking bail.
Case: Debal Banerjee @ Debdal Banerjee @ Debdulal Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 241
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against a man who was found in a "compromising position" at a brothel. Petitioner, was charged under the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 (in short Act of 1956).
In quashing the case, a single bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held:
From the record it appears that there is no material on record even after completion of investigation, to demonstrate that the victim was procured or any attempt was made to procure the victim for the prostitution by the present petitioner/customer.
Case: Biswanath Murmu-Vs-The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 242
The Calcutta High Court has held that when an adult victim knowingly and willingly consented to sexual relations with a man, the man cannot later be held guilty for committing the offence of rape on the pretext of marriage.
A single bench of Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay held:
The relationship between the parties was indubitably consensual. The victim lady being an adult was aware of the consequences of such relationship and denial on the part of the appellant to marry her would entail wide ramification.The victim being an adult lady could not have been a prey to the promise to marry concept foregoing her knowledge of subsequent possibilities, probabilities and eventualities if such promise was not acted upon.
Calcutta High Court Allows Protest March Against Alleged Atrocities Faced By Hindus In Bangladesh
Case: Gopal Adhikary & Ors. -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 243
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a protest march against the alleged atrocities faced by members of the Hindu community in ethnic violence which has broken out across Bangladesh.
A single bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh allowed the protest, which is scheduled to lead up to the Bangladesh High Commission, when a delegation of a few members will be meeting the High Commissioner to share concerns over the hardships faced by Hindus in Bangladesh.
Case: Rajesh Kewat Managing Director, Fast Info Legal Services Private Limited Versus The State of West Bengal & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 244
The Calcutta High Court has declined to quash a criminal case against the proprietors of a 'legal services' online company who allegedly duped a lady who had been a victim of a credit card scam and had approached them through Google to help her report the same.
A single bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held:
It appears that under the banner of one Website, namely, https://www.onlinelegalindia.com, the said company has cheated so many persons in the manner as cheated the Opposite Party No. 2. The complainant tried to contact the company further but they did not agree to talk with her and further used slang languages to her. She has been duped by the said company...Caller stated that they have their own cyber cell, where they will register the FIR and for that they will charge a sum of Rs. 1,179/-. The said amount has been paid from her Bank Account, but, despite assurance, neither copy of FIR was provided to her nor any action has been taken by them. No service was provided to her for what they have charged for.
Case: Dr. Shiuli Mukherjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 245
The Calcutta High Court has declined to quash a case against the owner of a nursing home filed by the father of a lady suffering from COVID-19, who allegedly passed away due to treatment by a "fake doctor."
A single bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held:
"It is true that the petitioner in this application has made a conscious effort to distance herself from the other accused Sudipto Sardar by saying that due to Government notification and also due to an unprecedented situation resulted out of COVID 19 pandemic, she was not in a position to verify the genuineness of the documents produced by the other accused but such plea is certainly a disputed question of fact, specially when the fake doctor has signed in the death certificate of the victim disclosing himself as a resident medical officer. All these issues are to be considered and decided during trial."
Case: Arun Uday Paul Chowdhury -Vs-The State of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 246
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a rally by the Bharatiya Janata Party in Kolkata's Howrah area, after permission had been refused by the police authorities.
A single bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh allowed permission for the rally, but expressed string exception over the fact that it had been scheduled to be held along a stretch of "narrow road" which was only 20 metres wide.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, Kolkata Vs M/S. Delta Dealers Private Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 247
The Calcutta High Court has held that it cannot indulge in factual examination of the material produced or not produced by an assessee-company to explain the share capital and premium received by it, in an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.
A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya thus refused to interfere with an ITAT order which deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer towards “unexplained” share capital and share premium of Rs.15,51,00,000/- under Section 68.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 2 Kolkata Vs Gpt Sons Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 248
The Calcutta High Court has refused to apply Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to a scrutiny notice issued in an amalgamating company's name, despite the Assessing Officer being aware about the company's amalgamation.
Section 292-B provides that no notice or assessment or any proceedings can be deemed to be invalid merely for the reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such notice, assessment or other proceedings.
In the case at hand, a division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that “the fact of amalgamation was well within the knowledge of the assessing officer.”
