Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: April 2024

NOMINAL INDEXM/s Fullerton India Credit Company Limited vs Ms Manju Khati 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 79United Machinery & Appliances v. Greaves Cotton Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 86Ram Asheesh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 81Sankar 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 ANJANI PUTRA SENA v STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 87 EMAMI LIMITED v HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 88 Paschim Banga Cha Majoor Samity & Ors. v The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 89 Ashadul Sekh and others v The State of West Bengal and other 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 90 Prabir Kumar Mitra vs State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 91 Uphealth Holdings Inc v. Glocal Healthcare Systems Pvt Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 92 Berger Paints India Ltd. Versus JSW Paints Pvt. Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 93Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 94 The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central) -2, Kolkata Versus M/S. BST Infratech Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 95 Md. Farid Vs. Union of India & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 96 Dhansar Engineering Company Pvt Ltd v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 97 Kashmira Khan Vs. The West Bengal State Election Commission & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 98 Ashish Kumar Sharma Versus The Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Bureau Of Investigation, South Bengal, Howrah Zone And Others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 99ORDERS/JUDGEMENTSCertified Copy Of Original Arbitration Agreement Attested By 'Notary Public' Is Sufficient Under S. 8(2) Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 79Case Title: M/s Fullerton India Credit Company Limited vs Ms Manju KhatiThe Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that a certified copy of the original agreement 'attested by a Notary Public' is sufficient to meet the requirement of Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act. Once filed, the courts must refer the parties to arbitration.Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act provides, “The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.”The High Court held that the Trial Court wrongly concluded that the Petitioner had failed to produce either the original or a duly certified copy of the agreement as required under the Arbitration Act. However, it was established that the Petitioner did provide a certified copy of the original agreement, attested by a Notary Public. This was deemed sufficient to meet the legal requirements.Cognizance Taken By Magistrate For Cheating And Forgery , Calcutta High Court Refuse To Refer Parties To ArbitrationCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 80Case Title: United Machinery & Appliances v. Greaves Cotton Limited, CS. 2 of 2015The High Court of Calcutta has dismissed an application filed under Section 8 of the A&C Act by observing that the allegations of fraud and forgery would be serious in nature when the cognizance of the same is take by the magistrate.The bench of Justice Krishna Rao relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. Ayyasamy vs. A. Paramasiva, (2016) 10 SCC 386 and Rashid Raza vs. Sadaf Akhtar, (2019) 8 SCC 710 to hold that dispute would not be referred to arbitration when the allegations of fraud and forgery are serious in nature and goes to the existence of the agreement containing arbitration clause.Important DevelopmentsShameful Even If 1% Of Claims Found To Be True; State Owes Moral Responsibility: Calcutta High Court On SandeshkhaliCase No: WPA/4011/2024Case: THE COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL The Calcutta High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict in various pleas seeking a probe into the alleged instances of violence against women and land grabbing which had occurred in Sandeshkhali, West Bengal under the watch of former Pradhan Shahjahan Sheikh, and his workers.A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya were considering public interest litigations seeking an independent probe into the instances of violence alleged against Shahjahan and his men.Upon hearing the allegations raised by counsel, and reading the affidavits placed on record regarding the sexual assault faced by the women, and land grabbing faced by the people of the area, the Chief Justice orally remarked:"The entire district administration and ruling dispensation must owe a moral responsibility. Even if [the affidavit] 1% is true it is absolutely shameful. And West Bengal says it is safest for women? If one affidavit is proved to be right all of this falls."Earlier, the Court had directed the investigation...

Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: April 2024

Srinjoy Das