NOMINAL INDEXRam Asheesh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 81Sankar Mandal v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 82Md. Khalid v The State of West Bengal and others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 83SK. Jaynal Abddin Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 84Subhas Mondal Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 85Centrotrade Minerals & Metals...
NOMINAL INDEX
Ram Asheesh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 81
Sankar Mandal v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 82
Md. Khalid v The State of West Bengal and others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 83
SK. Jaynal Abddin Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 84
Subhas Mondal Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 85
Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc v. Hindusthan Copper Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 86
Furnishing Of Wrong Information For Securing A Job Amounts To Fraud Upon The Employer: Calcutta High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 81
Case: Ram Asheesh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
A single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Partha Sarathi Sen while deciding a writ petition in the case of Ram Asheesh Yadav v. Union of India has held each candidate selected for the post of Constable in RPF must be free from all vices, possess a sense of sufficient responsibility, and be truthful, dutiful, vigilant as well as honest. Therefore, the furnishing of wrong information for securing a job amounts to fraud upon the employer.
Non-Disclosure of Information Cannot Form The Sole Ground for Employer to Discharge Employee: Calcutta High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 82
Case: Sankar Mandal v. Union of India
A single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury while deciding a writ petition in the case of Sankar Mandal v. Union of India has held that non-disclosure of information cannot form the sole ground for the competent authority to discharge the employee.
The court observed that an employer while passing an order of discharge from service for giving false information may take into consideration the criminal antecedents and has a right to consider continuance of such candidate. However, the court, inter alia, relied on the case of Pawan Kumar v. Union of India & Anr., wherein the Supreme Court held that an employee could not be arbitrarily discharged from service on ground of mere suppression of material or false information. The court further reiterated the holding in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., wherein the Supreme Court held that “although empanelment creates no right to appointment, there cannot be any arbitrary denial after empanelment as well.”
Modern Penology Seeks To Reform Prisoners Regardless Of Past; Releasing Bowbazar Blast Convict After 31 Yrs Sets Good Precedent For Other Inmates: Calcutta HC
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 83
Case: Md. Khalid v The State of West Bengal and others
The Calcutta High Court has allowed the premature release of a convict incarcerated for more than 31 years in connection with the infamous Bowbazar Blasts which rocked the city more than three decades ago.
In noting the conflict between the human rights of an individual and the interest of the public a large, a single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held:
It is not credible that the person who has spent over three decades in custody and deliberately seeks premature release would repeat his offence again which, quite obviously, would send him back into a dark abyss to a point of no-return. Not only will [releaso contribute another reformed citizen to the mainstream society, the same will set a good precedent for other convicts in prison to attempt emulation and shall act as a deterrent for them to be less than perfect in their conduct in prison.
Payments By Supervisors To Individual Labourers, Each Not Exceeding Rs. 20,000, Can't Be Disallowed: Calcutta High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 84
Case Title: SK. Jaynal Abddin Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata
The Calcutta High Court has held that payments by supervisors to individual labourers, each not exceeding Rs. 20,000, cannot be disallowed under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj has observed that the supervisors acted as agents of the assessee to disburse the amount to individual labourers, which in no case exceeded Rs. 20,000/- for any individual labour. Therefore, in view of the circumstances prescribed in the second proviso to Section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD(l) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, the payment of Rs. 1,21,49,190 cannot fall within the scope of Section 40A(3) of the Act, 1961.
Child Abuse Scars Victims & Leads To Long Term Consequences; Early Recognition, Prevention Crucial In Safeguarding Children: Calcutta High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 85
Case: Subhas Mondal Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under Sections 376(2)(f) and 511 IPC, for the offence of attempt to rape and Section 354 of the IPC for outraging the modesty of the 10-year-old victim girl.
It was the case of the prosecution that the accused groped the minor victim's breasts from behind and hugged her while she was returning alone from the toilet.
A single bench of Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul also found that there was enough evidence to convict the man under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, but the same could not be applied retrospectively since the incident happened in 2010, and the Act came into force in 2012.
Calcutta High Court Dismisses Petition Opposing Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitral Award Based On Constructive Res-Judicata
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 86
Case Title: Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc v. Hindusthan Copper Limited. IA. No. GA. 5 of 2021 in EOS. 11 of 2003
The High Court of Calcutta has dismissed an application by Hindustan Copper Limited (HCL) under Sections 48/49 of the A&C Act seeking to refuse enforcement of the foreign award in favour of the Centrotrade Minerals.
The bench of Justice Sugato Majmudar held that once the enforceability of an award is affirmed by the Supreme Court, it cannot be opposed on a new ground which could have been taken in earlier proceedings in relation to the enforceability. It held that such an application would be barred by constructive resjudicata.