Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: 1st July To 7th July, 2024

NOMINAL INDEX

GOPA DAS VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 153

Arabul Islam vs The State of West Bengal 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 154

M/s. Asian Hotels (East) Ltd. & Anr. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 155

M/S. B.B.M. Enterprises Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 156

M/s. Araha Hospitality Private Limited vs. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited and others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 157

Peng Yongxin@ Umesh Yonjan Vs. State of West Bengal 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 158

Calcutta High Court Imposes 10K Cost On Litigants For Filing 'Fake' Post-Poll Violence Case

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 153

Case: GOPA DAS VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

The Calcutta High Court has imposed a fine of Rs 5000 each on a petitioner and defendant for filing a fake case relating to post-poll violence in West Bengal in the aftermath of the Lok Sabha Elections 2024.

A single bench of Justice Amrita Sinha imposed the total cost of Rs 10,000 when the parties had approached the court seeking to withdraw their case.

During the hearing of the case, the parties had submitted before the Court that they wished to withdraw the case as an amicable settlement had been arrived at between them after the petitioners initially claimed that they were BJP workers who were ousted from their homes by those belonging to the ruling dispensation.

Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To Former TMC MLA Arabul Islam Accused In Murder Of ISF Leader

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 154

Case: Arabul Islam vs The State of West Bengal  

The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader and former MLA Arabul Islam who was accused in the murder of an Indian Secular Front (ISF) leader.

Islam was arrested by the police in February on suspicion of murder and vandalism of government property.

A division bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Prasenjit Biswas granted bail to Islam upon imposing several conditions on him.

The complaint against the petitioner was filed when there was a confrontation between him and his supporters and members of the rival political party during the filing of nomination for the 2023 Panchayat Elections.

Calcutta High Court Stays Demand Order Confirming Payment Reversal Of ITC Due To Cancellation Of Supplier's Registration

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 155

Case Title: M/s. Asian Hotels (East) Ltd. & Anr. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.

The Calcutta High Court stayed the demand order confirming the payment reversal of the ITC due to the cancellation of the supplier's registration.

The bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury has observed that the prima facie case was made by the petitioner/assessee, and there shall be a stay of the demand raised by the proper officer as is reflected in the order, subject to the petitioners' depositing 10% of the disputed tax amount with the GST authorities.

Chief Justice Or Their Designate Cannot Adjudicate Merits Of Dispute Under Section 11 Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 156

Case Title: M/S. B.B.M. Enterprises Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors.

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that it is completely beyond the domain of the Chief Justice and/or his designate, sitting in jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to adjudicate even prima facie on the merits of an arguable issue involved in the matter, which would fall categorically within the domain of adjudication by the Arbitrator.

It held that all jurisdictional issues, including limitation, are to be decided by the Arbitrator. The bench held that even if there is a shade of doubt as to the issue of limitation, the Court sitting under Section 11 cannot decide the same conclusively and the matter has to be relegated to the Arbitrator.

Section 11 outlines the procedure for the appointment of arbitrators and the role of the Chief Justice or his designate in such appointments.

Calcutta High Court Declines Plea Challenging Tender Awarded By IRCTC Alleging Allottee's Non-Disclosure Of Involvement In 'Rail Neer Scam'

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 157

Case: M/s. Araha Hospitality Private Limited vs. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited and others

The Calcutta High Court has declined a plea challenging a tender allotted by the Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation (IRCTC). The plea challenged the allotment process on the ground that the allottee/successful bidder had been accused in the 'Rail Neer scam', and was being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for the same.

A single bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held:

"The petitioner has not been able to satisfy that the action of the authority suffers from arbitrariness, perversity or favouritism. The court should not normally interfere with the policy of the tendering authority. If the petitioners or the court think that charges of corruption prior to three years should be a relevant factor in the decision making process, such opinion cannot be a reason for exercise of power of judicial review. When technically qualified and experienced people have formulated the terms and conditions of the tender, the court should not interfere because the court feels that a more stringent interpretation of the terms would be wiser, more logical or fair."

Calcutta High Court Denies Bail To Chinese Man Who Allegedly Attempted To Enter India With Fake Nepali Passport, Travel Documents

Citaiton: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 158

Case: Peng Yongxin@ Umesh Yonjan Vs. State of West Bengal

The Calcutta High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri has denied bail to a Chinese national who attempted to enter India using a fake Nepali passport and travel documents, posing as a Nepali citizen.

A single bench of Justice Subhenu Samanta upheld the order of the trial court and stated: Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the police and refused to grant default bail. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Learned Magistrate. The Learned Magistrate has correctly taken cognizance of the offence on the strength of the charge sheet, and as the charge sheet has been submitted has been correctly refused the prayer for default bail.