Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: July 2023

NOMINAL INDEX (Citations 180-201)The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Winsome International Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 180State Of West Bengal And Ors. Vs Sirajul Islam Gharami And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 181National Human Rights Commission and Ors v The State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 182Texmaco Rail and Engineering Limited & Anr v Union of India and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 183Tushar Manna v Ananda Sarkar 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 184Ujjwal Trivedi v The State Of West Bengal and Ors with Save Democracy And Ors v The State Of West Bengal And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 185Dipu Bar and Ors. Vs Union Of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 186Smt. Shanta Paul v The State Of West Bengal And Others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 187Dhirarastra Dutta Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 188Srei Equipment Finance Limited v. Seirra Infraventure Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 189State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Asit Das & Ors. & connected appeals 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 190Jaya Industries v Mother Dairy Calcutta & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 191Auroma Coke Limited v Coal India Limited and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 192The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. M/s. BBM Enterprise 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 193Tanushree Hazra Vs State of West Bengal And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 194Shreekant Sharma Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 195Somnath Gupta Vs. State of West Bengal & Orr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 196Shagufta Sulaiman v State of WB and ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 197 Shivani Mishra Vs. The Union of India and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 198Rabin Tudu vs. State of West Bengal & ors and connected applications 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 199Biresh Poddar and another v State of West Bengal and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 200Nazia Elahi Khan vs State of West Bengal and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 2011. MSMED Act | Defaulting Buyer Not Liable To Pay Interest At 3 Times Bank Rate If Supplier Is A Medium Enterprise: Calcutta High CourtCase: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Winsome International Ltd.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 180The Calcutta High Court has ruled that where the supplier is a “medium enterprise” under Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), the rate of interest levied on the arbitral award would be at the bank rate notified by the RBI, and not three-times of such rate, as would have been the case if it were a Micro, or Small enterprise under Section 16 of the MSMED Act.Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was hearing a petition by New India Assurance Co Ltd for a stay of the arbitral award of Rs 24,11,07,449.15 imposed on them by a sole-Arbitrator, on the grounds that the Arbitrator had set the rate of interest at 24.6%, which was three-times the bank rate notified by the RBI, in spite of the respondents being a “medium enterprise.”The court said three kinds of enterprises are defined in three distinct ways under MSMED Act and cannot be viewed as a common set of similar enterprise.2. Calcutta High Court Criticizes Party For Invoking Writ Jurisdiction For Registration Of FIR Against Police Officials Over Alleged ViolenceCase: State Of West Bengal And Ors. Vs Sirajul Islam Gharami And Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 181The Calcutta High Court set aside a single-judge order directing registration of FIR against certain police officials of Baruipur district for alleged violence, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.Questioning the perpetual practise of approaching the High Court under Writ Jurisdiction when there are alternate remedies available under other statutes, a bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivgananam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya orally remarked:“How is your writ maintainable? Why do you not avail remedy (under 156(3) CrPC)? Why short circuit to the writ court? The remedy is under a statute, and you go before a judicial magistrate. Here in writ jurisdiction, on affidavits, how can we give a positive direction for registration of FIR? This has become a routine affair. You have virtually converted the single-bench residuary determination to a Magistrates court. Day in and day out we are seeing…it is a surprise for me…this process in unknown to law. There are umpteen decisions of the SC, rendered by Justice Markandey Katju who says these cases should not be entertained under 226. The magistrate is there to ascertain the facts of a case…he can monitor investigation or issue any positive directions.”3. Panchayat Elections: Calcutta High Court Dismisses NHRC's Appeal For Appointment Of “Human Rights Observers”Case: National Human Rights Commission and Ors v The State of West BengalCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 182The Calcutta High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) against a single-judge’s order which set aside appointment of observers and other related directions issued by the Commission “to protect human rights” in the course of the 2023 Panchayat Elections, on the basis of a media reports on wide-spread...

Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: July 2023

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: July 2023

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers