Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: 17th November To 24th November, 2024
Srinjoy Das
25 Nov 2024 10:05 AM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
Mitadru Sau Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 249
Sagari Hembram -vs- State of West Bengal & another Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 250
Saddam Hossain Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 251
In the matter of : Dr. Subires Bhattacharya @ Subiresh Bhattacharjee V. The Central Bureau of Investigation and connected matters Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 252
Kuntal Ghosh v/s. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 253
Suman Talukder Vs. Namita Paul Talukder Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 254
X v State of West Bengal Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 255
ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS
Case: Mitadru Sau Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 249
The Calcutta High Court has directed the authorities to consider re-assessing a candidate who appeared for the NEET (UG) 2024 exam, and sought to be eligible under the PwD category.
A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta heard the candidate's plea to set aside the disability certificate issued by the Designated Disability NEET Screening Centre, IPGME&R, Kolkata which assessed the petitioner's disability at 31%, and directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner's disability assessment or consider the assessment under the petitioner's UDID card.
Case: Sagari Hembram -vs- State of West Bengal & another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 250
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a case against a man's second wife, under various sections of the IPC including Section 498A (cruelty), Section 494, 406 and Section 506, as well as under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by his first wife.
Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul quashed the charges and held: "Offence alleged under Section 494 of IPC is applicable to the person who has married for the second time, during the life time of his spouse in a valid marriage. none of the offences alleged in the said complaint are applicable in respect of the petitioner who admittedly is not the relative of the husband of the complainant."
Case: Saddam Hossain Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 251
The Calcutta High Court has denied relief to a NEET candidate belonging to the EWS category who sought to migrate from JIS Medical college, which is a private medical college, to a government medical college.
It was submitted by the petitioner that he belongs to an extremely economically backward section of society and that his EWS rank in the NEET UG exam was enough to secure him admission to a government college. However, it was stated that when he tried to participate in the admission process, he was to receive an OTP from the admission portal, but the OTP never came.
After this, the petitioner stated that he contacted the helpline and was asked to participate in the second round of counselling. When he sought a hearing, the petitioner was told that he could take admission in a private medical college, and when a vacancy arose, he could seek migration to a government college.
In denying the plea of the petitioner, a division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee held:
"The photostat copy of the log obtained from the server of the National Informatics Centre (NIC), as annexed at page 15 of the A/O filed by the respondent nos. 3 to 5 would reveal that though the first round of counselling commenced from 25.07.2023, the appellant fetched the OTP only once and that too on the last date of the said counselling, i.e., on 28.07.2023. Records further reveal that having allegedly failed to obtain the OTP on 28.07.2023, the first representation was submitted about two months thereafter on 26.09.2023, i.e., after publication of the result of the Online Stray Round on 25.09.2023."
Case: In the matter of : Dr. Subires Bhattacharya @ Subiresh Bhattacharjee V. The Central Bureau of Investigation and connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 252
The Calcutta High Court has delivered a split verdict on the bail pleas of Partha Chatterjee, former State Education Minister, and four others, accused in the infamous cash for jobs recruitment scam case.
While the division bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray was considering bail pleas by the accused, Justice Banerjee granted bail to all accused, while Justice Sinha Ray denied bail to Chatterjee, and four other officials from the education department, namely Subiresh Bhattacharjee, Kalyanmoy Gangopadhyay, Ashok Saha and Shanti Prasad Sinha.
Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To Suspended TMC Leader Kuntal Ghosh In Recruitment Scam Case
Case: Kuntal Ghosh v/s. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 253
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to suspended Trinamool Congress youth leader Kuntal Ghosh in the cash-for-jobs recruitment scam case being investigated by the CBI and ED.
While Justice Suvra Ghosh granted bail to the accused subject to a bond of Rs 10 lakhs, he will remain in custody in another case being investigated by the CBI.
Case: Suman Talukder Vs. Namita Paul Talukder
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 254
The Calcutta High Court has observed that it is high time that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is recognised as a ground for divorce under Indian law, by reading it into the grounds of cruelty or desertion, like it is in the UK.
A division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Uday Kumar held:
It transpires from the consistent conduct and lack of interest of the wife that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down. Although irretrievable breakdown is per se not a ground for divorce as yet in Indian Law, the jurisprudence in certain other countries such as the United Kingdom incorporate the component of irretrievable breakdown as an aspect of cruelty, affording a ground of divorce in such cases.
Case: X v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 255
The Calcutta High Court has allowed an infertile couple to avail of the facility of Assistive Reproductive Techniques (ART) to aid them in conceiving a child, even though the husband's age at 58 years, was above the statutory limit prescribed under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Rules, 2022.
Justice Amrita Sinha held: In the instant case, the woman falls within the prescribed age limit but the man is over aged. Due to over age of the husband, the clinic is refusing to provide the service to the couple. The clinic or the bank does not have any authority to refuse service if a single partner of a married couple intends to avail the service. Had the wife approached the clinic individually, the clinic could not have refused to provide ARTS to her. Here, since the parties are in a cordial relationship, they approached the clinic jointly as commissioning couple.
