Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 19th To August 25th, 2024

Nominal Index

Bhubaneshwari Seafood Private Limited And Anr. Vs Ugro Capital Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 188

Dr. Sandip Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 189

M/S. Siemens Healthcare Private Limited Vs Sun Hospital And Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 190

Arup Mallick versus Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and State Tax, & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 191

No Independent Dispute Redressal Institution Recognised By Government In Kolkata, Parties Should Approach Court Under Section 11 For Appointment Of Arbitrator: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Bhubaneshwari Seafood Private Limited And Anr. Vs Ugro Capital Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 188

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that SAMA, an Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform, is not an independent Dispute Redressal Institution duly recognized by the Government of India in Kolkata. Therefore, the bench held that party should approach the court for the appointment of an arbitrator in view of disagreement.

Calcutta High Court Declines To Issue Gag Order In Former RG Kar Principal Dr Sandip Ghosh's Plea Alleging Media Trial

Case: Dr. Sandip Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors

Citaiton: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 189

The Calcutta High Court has refused to issue an order restraining media outlets from broadcasting news about former RG Kar principal Dr Sandip Ghosh, in a plea by the ex-principal alleging 'media trial.'

A single bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar declined Ghosh's plea while cautioning the media to avoid 'animated dramatization' and publish objective news instead of subjective opinion. The court said:

"The media ensures that the individuals (members of civil society) participate in a matter of national importance. In this case, the incident has attained a status of global importance. Thus, right to information would be fundamental in this case, as each and every member of civil society is severely affected by the incident either directly or indirectly."

Commercial Division Of High Court Can Hear Applications And Appeals Under The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 Filed On Original Side: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: M/S. Siemens Healthcare Private Limited Vs Sun Hospital And Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 190

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that even if an application or appeal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 relating to a commercial dispute is filed on the Original Side of the High Court, the same can be heard and disposed by the Commercial Division of the High Court.

The bench held that:

“The language used in Section 10(2) is “shall”, which is mandatory and implies that even if an application is filed in the original Side of the High Court (without any distinction between Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction or Commercial Division), it would suffice if the same is heard and disposed of by the Commercial Division.”

Failure To Comply Provision Of Sec 75(4) Of CGST Act 2017 Vitiates Entire Order: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Arup Mallick versus Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and State Tax, & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 191

The Calcutta High Court held that failure to comply with statutory provision which mandates consideration of explanation on the part of assessee before passing adverse order, vitiates such order.

The High Court held so while considering that the petitioner was prevented from filing his response to the show cause notice, due to a reasonable cause.

Referring to Section 75(4) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, Single Bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that “affording an opportunity of hearing is mandated where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax, or penalty or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person”.