Calcutta High Court Annual Digest 2023 [PART- II] (Citations 148-353)

ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS“Reasons Are The Foundation Of Any Order": Calcutta High Court Allows Decco's Appeal Against Rejection Of Patent ApplicationCase: Decco Worldwide Post Harvest Holdings B.V & Anr. V The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 148The Calcutta High Court recently set aside an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (“Controller”), rejecting a Patent Application filed by agrochemical multinational UPL's postharvest division Decco Worldwide (“the Appellants”) for their invention titled “A fungicidal treatment for black sigatoka,” to prevent leaf-disease that infects banana plants. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs objected to the patent application on the grounds that it was a non-patentable subject under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Act”), which deals with “agricultural and horticultural methods”. Further it was also adjudged that the Patent Application did not contain any clear disclosure under Section 10(4) of the Patents Act and that there was a lack of “obviousness and inventive steps” in the invention under Section 2(1) (ja) of the Patents Act.Calcutta High Court Dismisses PIL Against Softwares Like 'Pegasus' Allegedly Used For Privacy InfringementCase title: Sujit Kumar Datta v The State of West Bengal & Ors [W.P.A(P) No. 239 of 2023] Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 149The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a PIL calling upon it to decide the issue of individual's right to privacy allegedly being violated by spyware such as Pegasus, said to be installed on people's personal electronic devices without their knowledge. A bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnaman and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya opined that such blanket directions against the use of modern technology for allegedly being violative of the fundamental right to privacy of individuals could not be passed. Further, according to the Chief Justice, due to the vague nature of the submissions and prayers of the petitioner, the Court could not arrive at the specific questions of law involved.Police Can't Misuse S.160 CrPC To Arrest Persons Unconnected With Alleged Offence: Calcutta High Court In Plea By Suvendu Adhikari's AcquaintancesCase Title: Sutapa Adhikari & Ors v State of West Bengal & Anr Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 150The Calcutta High Court has made it clear that Section 160 of the CrPC which empowers the police to require attendance of witnesses cannot be misused to take coercive steps against persons not connected with the alleged offence. While hearing a plea filed by persons claiming to be the relatives and acquaintances of West Bengal's Leader of Opposition, Suvendhu Adhikari, a single bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed, "The practice, if adopted by investigating agency during investigation to call someone not named in the FIR or not connected in any way in committing the offence, by a notice under section 160 of the Cr.P.C and when the person concerned complies direction of such notice, the investigating officer in the name of interrogation, implicate him as an accused and arrest him directly, such practice cannot be encouraged"Husband Acquiring Property In Wife's Name Does Not Necessarily Imply Benami Transaction: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Sekhar Kr Roy v Lila Roy & Anr (FA 109 of 2018) Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 151The Calcutta High Court has clarified that the mere transfer of money from a husband to his wife for the purchase of property would not qualify as a benami transaction. A Division bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakroborty and Justice Partha Sarthi Chatterjee observed, "In the Indian society, if a husband supplies the consideration money for acquiring property in the name of his wife, such fact does not necessarily imply benami transaction. Source of money is, no doubt, an important factor but not a decisive one. The intention of the supplier of the consideration money is the vital fact to be proved by the party who asserts benami."'Never Resided With In-Laws, Question Of Cruelty Doesn't Arise': Calcutta High Court Quashes Woman's Complaint U/S 498A IPCCase Title: Deepak Chatterjee @ Dipak Chatterjee & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr (CRR 261 of 2020) Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 152The Calcutta High Court quashed a domestic violence complaint filed by a woman against her in-laws for allegedly trying to strangulate her, upon noting that the parties never resided together. A single-judge bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) observed that the respondent herself in her Section 164 CrPC statement said she had left her matrimonial home on 20.01.2015, but in her memorandum of complaint she claimed that her in-laws had tried to strangle her to death on 22.01.2015.Venue Would Not Be The Seat Of Arbitration When The Agreement Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction On The Courts At A Different Place: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Homevista Décor & Furnishing Pvt. Ltd. v. Connect Residuary Pvt. Ltd.Citation: 2023...

Calcutta High Court Annual Digest 2023 [PART- II] (Citations 148-353)

Srinjoy Das

Tags