Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: 26th August To 1st September, 2024
Srinjoy Das
6 Sep 2024 8:12 AM GMT
NOMINAL INDEXDamodar Valley Corporation Vs BLA Projects Pvt. Ltd. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 192Vishambhar Saran -Vs.- Bureau Of Immigration & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 193Mayukh Biswas vs State of West Bengal Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 194Dr. Partha Biswas Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 195Sanjoy Das v Registrar General, Calcutta High...
NOMINAL INDEX
Damodar Valley Corporation Vs BLA Projects Pvt. Ltd. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 192
Vishambhar Saran -Vs.- Bureau Of Immigration & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 193
Mayukh Biswas vs State of West Bengal Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 194
Dr. Partha Biswas Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 195
Sanjoy Das v Registrar General, Calcutta High Court Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 196
Sanjoy Das v State of West Bengal Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 197
Suklal Singh & Anr. -Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 198
Sajarul Rahaman And Anr vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited And Anr and Connected Matters Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 199
Debranjan Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 200
Subal Makhal -Versus- Indian Red Cross Society & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 201
Anjali Lahiri v State of West Bengal Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 202
Marg Limited Vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited And Connected Matters Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 203
Case Title: Kakali Khasnobis Vs Mrs Reeta Paul And Anr. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 204
Bengal Shelter Housing Development Limited Vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 205
ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS
Case Title: Damodar Valley Corporation Vs BLA Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 192
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that if an Arbitrator's judgment is well-reasoned and backed by substantial evidence, there are no grounds to challenge it under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The matter pertained to a dispute between BLA Projects Private Limited (the claimant/respondent) and Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) (the petitioner). In the arbitration proceedings, BLA Projects claimed under seven heads, of which four claims were granted by the arbitrator. DVC's counterclaims on two counts were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the High Court and filed a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation 1996.
Case Title: Vishambhar Saran -Vs.- Bureau Of Immigration & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 193
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that mere apprehension that a person would flee India and no steps could be taken to recover the money is not enough to issue a Look Out Circular (LOC) against him.
The matter pertained to a writ petition which was filed by an erstwhile Director of Visa Power Limited ("company in liquidation"). The Petitioner argued that he was never a whole-time director of the company, which is undergoing liquidation following an order issued by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Kolkata. The company obtained credit facilities from a consortium of banks, with Punjab National Bank (PNB) as the lead bank. This credit was intended for setting up a thermal power project in Raigarh district, Chhattisgarh, sanctioned around March 2010. However, due to the Supreme Court's decision canceling coal blocks, the thermal plant could not be established and operationalized thwarting the project's goal to supply power to contractors given coal block allocations.
Case: Mayukh Biswas vs State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 194
The Calcutta High Court has set aside a state government order banning supporters of Mohun Bagan Football Club from entering the Salt Lake Stadium with a large 'tifo' protesting the rape and murder of a trainee doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, during their team's match.
A division bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Hiranmay Bhattacharya held:
These activities are acclaimed as the sports activities of enjoyment and amusement but also inculcating a sense of discipline and, therefore, the supporters by using 'TIFO' are more responsive and used it for showing support to the team or its members to encourage them in order to achieve the desired result as expected by the said supporters. 'TIFO' means a flag or picture held up by the supporters of a team in a football match and, therefore, those displays are made for a short period of time or at intervals. Obviously, the viewers while using those 'TIFO' are conscious of their fellow viewers and, therefore, there should not be an apprehension of the State in this respect.
Case Title: Dr. Partha Biswas Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 195
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj has held that if a gathering is not intended for unlawful purposes, it should not be restricted at a public place unless there is an imminent threat to public order. Even in such situations, the High Court held that any restrictions imposed must be fair and reasonable with a balance between individual rights and public safety.
Dr. Partha Biswas (Petitioner), who serves as the Chief Coordinator of Mission Abhaya, a philanthropic organization, sought permission to hold a peaceful solidarity rally on August 28, 2024 at 2:00 P.M. The planned route of the rally is from College Square passing through Bidahan Sarani, and concluding at OP Bhandar Bus Stop near Shyambazar Five Points Crossing. However, the Joint Commissioner of Police (HQ), Kolkata, refused to grant permission for the event. Consequently, the Petitioner requested a directive from the High Court to compel the Joint Commissioner to approve the rally.
Case: Sanjoy Das v Registrar General, Calcutta High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 196
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking to modify a judge's roster due to allegations of conflict of interest, with exemplary costs of Rs 50,000. The Court also debarred the litigant from filing a PIL ever again, by invoking the Calcutta High Court Appellate Side Rules.
Advocate Sanjoy Das, the petitioner, sought to change the determination of Justice Amrita Sinha's bench hearing matters of police inaction, by claiming that since the West Bengal CID was investigating Justice Sinha's husband for allegedly using his spouse's office to influence a probe, her determination over police matters would not inspire public confidence in the judicial system.
In dismissing the plea as an "attempt to intimidate the office of the Chief Justice", a division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya stated:
"It has been conclusively held that the right of the CJ in finalising the determination cannot be tinkered by a petitioner, and more particularly by an advocate practising before this court. The advice to look at the legal provisions fell on deaf ears. Therefore this writ petition is a clear abuse of process, and probably an attempt to intimidate the court, and to directly interfere with the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice."
Case: Sanjoy Das v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 197
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a PIL filed by Sanjoy Das, challenging a 12-hour Bandh called by the BJP, due to alleged police action against protestors who were marching to the State secretariat in 'Nabanna' to demand justice for the RG Kar rape-murder victim
Police deployed tear gas and water cannons when the crowd became unruly and began breaking barricades and throwing stones at them.
A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivgananam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya observed that the litigant, Das, had been debarred from filing PILs in the previous matter, where he had challenged the roster allotted to a judge by the Chief Justice.
State Orders Impacting Individual Rights Require Separate Legal Remedies: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Suklal Singh & Anr. -Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 198
The Calcutta High Court division bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has held that when a State authority's order is alleged to have impacted individual rights, each individual must pursue their legal remedy independently, and collective action in such cases is neither permissible nor maintainable.
Suklal Singh & Anr, Petitioners, two individuals, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the second respondent, Sub Divisional Officer and Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 10 of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964. The matter previously came before a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court through a similar petition filed by others. The Co-ordinate Bench, by an order, directed the second respondent to consider the Petitioners' case as outlined in the decision. Following this direction, the second respondent reviewed the issue and issued the impugned order declaring the Petitioners and others as encroachers on public land and ordering the recovery of possession from them.
Case Title: Sajarul Rahaman And Anr vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited And Anr and Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 199
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the principal application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award, falls under Entry No. 2(c) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. This entry is the residuary provision that prescribes a court fee of Rs. 120 for original applications before the High Court, where no other specific provision in Schedule II applies.
The bench clarified that Entry No. 1(10) of the Court Fees Act, which prescribes higher fees for applications seeking a direction for filing an award, an order for filing an agreement, or for enforcing foreign awards, does not extend to principal applications under Section 34.
Case: Debranjan Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 200
The Calcutta High Court on 23rd August, declined to issue prohibitory orders to prevent student organisations from marching towards the State's Secretariat in Nabanna, to protest against the brutal rape and murder of a trainee doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital.
Notably, though it was claimed that the protests, to be carried out by student bodies would be peaceful in nature, there was widespread violence at the protests, leading to injuries to several protestors and police personnel and destruction of public property.
Case: Subal Makhal -Versus- Indian Red Cross Society & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 201
A division bench of Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee while deciding writ petition held that the findings in criminal trial should have bearing on disciplinary proceedings, especially when the charges are identical or closely related.
The employee was appointed as a laborer (Group-D) in the Indian Red Cross Society on May 22, 1979. He was granted temporary status effective from April 1, 1980. On August 3, 1994, a complaint was lodged by respondent against employee, leading to a criminal case being registered under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with criminal breach of trust. The employee was arrested on August 6, 1994, and released on bail on August 23, 1994.
Case: Anjali Lahiri v State of West Bengal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 202
The Calcutta High Court has ordered the state police to release a student named Sayan Lahiri, who was alleged to be the leader of the 'Paschim Banga Chhatra Samaj', an organisation which led a call for protests and march towards the State secretariat in Nabanna.
The protests though claimed to be peaceful, resulted in widespread violence, resulting in grave injuries to both protestors and police personnel.
Lahiri was arrested in connection with leading the march, and his mother approached the High Court seeking his release on bail. A single bench of Justice Amrita Sinha in granting bail to Lahiri stated:
The authorities ought to have handled the issue in a more sensitive manner rather than target the protestors to prevent them from continuing their agitation. The authorities ought to appreciate that the protests are more in the form of a social uproar against the unfortunate incident at RG Kar. Such type of public dissent is required to be dealt with in a matured manner and not by unleashing force upon the protestors.
Case Title: Marg Limited Vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited And Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 203
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that if applicant of petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act seeks to benefit from the pandemic relaxation, it cannot simultaneously claim protection under the moratorium of Section 14 of the IBC.
The bench held that to avail the pandemic relaxation, the applicant need to show that the pandemic initially prevented it from filing the application on time.
The Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation directed the extension of period of limitation in all proceedings before Courts/Tribunals in light of COVID pandemic, including the Supreme Court from 15.3.2020 till further orders, and ultimately, by order dated 10.1.2022 held that the period from 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022 shall stand excluded in computing the period of limitation.
Case Title: Kakali Khasnobis Vs Mrs Reeta Paul And Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 204
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not require a prior request for reference to arbitration under Section 21.
The bench held that invalidity of an arbitral proceeding due to the absence of prior notice under Section 21 and a unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is distinct from a situation under Section 11(5), where prior notice is necessary only for the appointment of an arbitrator, not for the initiation of the proceeding itself.
Case Title: Bengal Shelter Housing Development Limited Vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 205
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that granting interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is justified if the Applicant's rights are not protected from third parties, as this could render the arbitral reference irretrievably infructuous.
