NOMINAL INDEXDr. Sima Banerjee Vs Dr. Barnali Chattopadhyay 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 111Lokenath Construction Private Limited Versus Tax/Revenue Government Of West Bengal And Others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 112Dhansar Engineering Company Private Limited Vs Eastern Coalfields Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 113CSB Bank Ltd vs UOI & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 114Rama Prasad Sarkar v State of West Bengal &...
NOMINAL INDEX
Dr. Sima Banerjee Vs Dr. Barnali Chattopadhyay 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 111
Lokenath Construction Private Limited Versus Tax/Revenue Government Of West Bengal And Others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 112
Dhansar Engineering Company Private Limited Vs Eastern Coalfields Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 113
CSB Bank Ltd vs UOI & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 114
Rama Prasad Sarkar v State of West Bengal & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 115
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Atlantic Dealers Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 116
Orders/judgements
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 111
Case: Dr. Sima Banerjee Vs Dr. Barnali Chattopadhyay
The Calcutta High Court has recently laid down guidelines of 'professional standards' for college teachers in a revision plea filed by a teacher for quashing proceedings under Sections 499/500 IPC for allegedly defaming a colleague.
A single bench of Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul quashed the case and held that the hostile atmosphere of the college due to political influence, which led to one teacher making allegedly defamatory comments against another during an interview had led to the primary cause of education being overlooked, and overall led to a detriment in student welfare.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 112
Case Title: Lokenath Construction Private Limited Versus Tax/Revenue Government Of West Bengal And Others
The Calcutta High Court has held that the adjudicating authority, without resorting to any action against the supplier, who is the selling dealer, ignored the tax invoices produced by the appellant as well as the certificates issued by the Chartered Accountants, which are erroneous and wholly without jurisdiction.
The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has observed that even in the show-cause notice, the authority has admitted that "it is true that the recipient has made payment of the element of tax to the supplier against such transaction, but the payment of such tax has not been reciprocated to the exchequer." If the authority has admitted the fact that the recipient, who is the appellant, has made payment of the tax to the supplier against the transaction, If it is the case of the department that such tax has not been remitted to the state exchequer, the elementary principle to be adopted is to cause an inquiry with the supplier, and without doing so to penalize the appellant, it would be arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 113
Case Name- CSB Bank Ltd vs UOI & Anr.
A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Arindam Mukherjee while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of CSB Bank Ltd vs UOI & Anr. has held that an order of a Tribunal can be challenged in a writ petition without waiting for the final order on ground of being in excess of jurisdiction.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 114
Case Title: Dhansar Engineering Company Private Limited Vs Eastern Coalfields Limited
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that if an agreement or clause within it necessitates or anticipates additional consent before arbitration can occur, it doesn't constitute arbitration itself but rather an agreement to potentially engage in arbitration in the future, which isn't inherently enforceable. It held that incorporating an arbitration clause via a subsequent circular isn't valid unless it's explicitly mentioned and included in the original agreement between the parties.
The bench held that without mutual intent to integrate the arbitration clause from another document into the current contract between the parties, there's no valid arbitration agreement.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 115
Case: Rama Prasad Sarkar v State of West Bengal & Ors
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed pleas seeking the Court's intervention over the issue of NRI quota in medical admissions and compliance with the Supreme Court's guidelines on the same.
In dismissing the plea, a division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya noted that the pleas were from 2019, and that since then there were various changes to the admission process making it more stringent to take admission under the NRI quota. It also observed that the students who had been admitted in that year would have all completed their course and as such the plea challenging their admissions would be rendered academic.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 116
Case Title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Atlantic Dealers Pvt. Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court, while deciding whether the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified or not, held that only because the directors failed to respond to the notices issued, the Assessing Officer could draw an adverse inference.
The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has observed that the assessing officer failed to comment on the veracity or admissibility of any of the details or documents produced by the assessee to prove the identity, the creditworthiness of the share subscribers, and the genuineness of the transaction.