Calcutta High Court Annual Digest: Part-III [Citations: 200-294]

RG Kar Rape-Murder: Why Did Calcutta High Court Allow Protestors To March To West Bengal's State Secretariat "Nabanna"Case: Debranjan Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 200The Calcutta High Court on 23rd August, declined to issue prohibitory orders to prevent student organisations from marching towards the State's Secretariat in Nabanna, to protest against the brutal rape and murder of a trainee doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital.Notably, though it was claimed that the protests, to be carried out by student bodies would be peaceful in nature, there was widespread violence at the protests, leading to injuries to several protestors and police personnel and destruction of public property.Findings In Criminal Trial Should Have Bearing On Disciplinary Proceedings In Case Of Identical Charges:Calcutta High CourtCase: Subal Makhal -Versus- Indian Red Cross Society & Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 201A division bench of Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee while deciding writ petition held that the findings in criminal trial should have bearing on disciplinary proceedings, especially when the charges are identical or closely related.The employee was appointed as a laborer (Group-D) in the Indian Red Cross Society on May 22, 1979. He was granted temporary status effective from April 1, 1980. On August 3, 1994, a complaint was lodged by respondent against employee, leading to a criminal case being registered under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with criminal breach of trust. The employee was arrested on August 6, 1994, and released on bail on August 23, 1994.RG Kar Rape-Murder: Calcutta HC Releases Student Booked For Leading March Towards Govt Secretariat, Cautions State Against 'Terrorising Protestors'Case: Anjali Lahiri v State of West BengalCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 202The Calcutta High Court has ordered the state police to release a student named Sayan Lahiri, who was alleged to be the leader of the 'Paschim Banga Chhatra Samaj', an organisation which led a call for protests and march towards the State secretariat in Nabanna.The protests though claimed to be peaceful, resulted in widespread violence, resulting in grave injuries to both protestors and police personnel.Applicants Seeking Pandemic Relaxation For Limitation Under Section 34 Petition Cannot Simultaneously Claim IBC Moratorium Protection: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Marg Limited Vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited And Connected MattersCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 203The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that if applicant of petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act seeks to benefit from the pandemic relaxation, it cannot simultaneously claim protection under the moratorium of Section 14 of the IBC.The bench held that to avail the pandemic relaxation, the applicant need to show that the pandemic initially prevented it from filing the application on time.The Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation directed the extension of period of limitation in all proceedings before Courts/Tribunals in light of COVID pandemic, including the Supreme Court from 15.3.2020 till further orders, and ultimately, by order dated 10.1.2022 held that the period from 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022 shall stand excluded in computing the period of limitation.No Prior Request Under Section 21 Needed For Section 11 Arbitration Applications: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Kakali Khasnobis Vs Mrs Reeta Paul And Anr.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 204The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not require a prior request for reference to arbitration under Section 21.The bench held that invalidity of an arbitral proceeding due to the absence of prior notice under Section 21 and a unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is distinct from a situation under Section 11(5), where prior notice is necessary only for the appointment of an arbitrator, not for the initiation of the proceeding itself.Interim Measures Under Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Justified If Applicant's Rights Are Not Protected From Third Parties: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Bengal Shelter Housing Development Limited Vs The Kolkata Municipal CorporationCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 205The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that granting interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is justified if the Applicant's rights are not protected from third parties, as this could render the arbitral reference irretrievably infructuous.Allegations Of Fraudulent Signatures On Arbitration Agreements Must Be Decided By Arbitrator, Not Court Under Section 11: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Ranajit Guha Roy and Anr. vs Sankar Kumar HalderCitation: 2024...

Calcutta High Court Annual Digest: Part-III [Citations: 200-294]

Srinjoy Das