Calcutta High Court Annual Digest: Part-II [Citations: 100-199]

Constitution Of Arbitral Tribunal Is Not A Bar On A Party's Right To Approach Section 9 Court For Implementation Of Its Order: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: RKD Niraj JV & Ors v. Union of India & Ors, WPO No. 173 of 2024 Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 100The High Court of Calcutta has held that constitution of arbitral tribunal is not a bar on a party's right to approach Section 9 Court for implementation of its order. The bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya held that bar under Section 9(3) which proscribe Section 9 remedy upon constitution of arbitral tribunal would not apply when the Court is reapproached for the enforcement of an order passed before the constitution of the tribunal.Law Doesn't Discriminate Between Individual Women, Couples Seeking IVF; No Requirement For Sperm/Oocyte To Come From Couple Themselves: Calcutta HCCase No: Sudarsan Mandal and Another v The State of West Bengal and othersCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 101The Calcutta High Court has recently held that in cases of in-vitrio fertilisation (IVF), it is not mandatory that either the sperm or the oocyte must come from the couple seeking IVF themselves.A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya perused the rules under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (Act) and allowed a plea by a husband who along with his wife sought to conceive through IVF, after losing their teenage daughter at a young age. The couple was facing difficulties due to the husband being 59 years old, and above the limit for IVF according to the Act, while the wife being 46-years old was eligible for the same.In A Post Award Section 9 Application, The Court Cannot Comment On The Correctness Of The Arbitral Award: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Meleveetil Damodaran v. UpHealth Holdings Inc, AP-COM No. 490 of 2024 Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 102The Calcutta High Court has held that while hearing a post award application under Section 9 of the A&C Act, the Court would not have the jurisdiction to decide on the correctness of the award. The Division Bench of Justices I.P. Mukerji and Biswaroop Chowdhury held that the Court would not adjudicate on whether the damages awarded in the arbitral award are correct or not.Plea In Calcutta High Court Seeks Extension Of Metro Service Timings, Says Last Train's Timing Being Earlier Than All Major Cities Causes Inconvenience To CommutersCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 103Case: AKASH SHARMA VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORSThe Calcutta High Court disposed of a PIL seeking an extension of metro timings in Kolkata by directing the railway authorities to consider the petitioner's prayer for an extension of the timings for the last metro by 45 minutes every day.A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya said:"While the domain of running metro services is the expertise of the railways and the court cannot comment on the same, we direct the authorities to consider the representation made by the petitioner for extension of metro timings by 45 minutes, till 10:30pm for the benefit of the commuters."Calcutta High Court Denies Bail To Former WB Education Minister Partha Chatterjee In Cash-For-Jobs ScamCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 104Case: Partha Chatterjee. -vs.- Enforcement DirectorateThe Calcutta High Court has declined the bail prayer of former Education Minister and Member of Legislative Assembly Partha Chatterjee in the cash-for-jobs recruitment scam, involving the illegal recruitment of Assistant Teachers under the West Bengal Board of Primary Education.A single bench upon going through the evidence including the amounts of money and assets, jewellery seized from Chatterjee and co-accused Arpita Mukherjee denied the bail application.Person Has No Right To Be Promoted But Has Fundamental Right To Be Considered For Promotion: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 105Case Name- Dr. Tapas Kumar Mandal Vs. UOI & OrsA single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Amrita Sinha while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Dr. Tapas Kumar Mandal Vs. UOI & Ors has held that an employee has no right to be promoted but he has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion.Non-Payment Of Withheld Pension Gives Right To Approach Court, Even If there is Delay : Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 106Case Name: Harendra Nath Bishayi vs State of West Bengal & Ors.A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Rajasekhar Mantha, J., while deciding a writ petition in the case of Harendra Nath Bishayi v. State of West Bengal & Ors., held that employees who have not received their withheld pension amounts have the legal right to seek recourse in court, regardless of any delay in doing so.Interruption In Service Due To Accident Would Not Amount To Break In Service For The Purpose Of S. 2A Of Gratuity Act: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 107Case Name- M/s. Dalhousie Jute Company Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.A ...

Calcutta High Court Annual Digest: Part-II [Citations: 100-199]

Srinjoy Das