Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: November 2023 [Citations 325- 338]

NOMINAL INDEXDamodar Valley Corporation v BLA Projects Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 325In the matter of: Sanjay Kashyap & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 326Babu Mondal & Ors. vs The State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 327Arnab Roy v State of WB & Ors with another connected application 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 328M/s. Kayal Construction Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 329Vishambhar Saran v Punjab National Bank & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 330Dr. Kunal Saha Vs. Registrar, West Bengal Medical Council (WBMC) & Another 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 331Amzed Ali Vs. State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 332Jagannath Chattopadhyay V The State of West Bengal and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 333Subha Saha Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 334Concrete Developers LLP v Gaurav Churiwal and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 335Balbina Tandon & Ors. v The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 336Tarun Kumar Pal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 337In Re: Dr Kalyanmoy Ganguly 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 338No ‘Contra-Indicia’ To Un-Seat Venue: Calcutta High Court Reiterates The Law On Seat & Venue In Arbitral ProceedingsCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 325Case: Damodar Valley Corporation v BLA Projects Pvt LtdThe Calcutta High Court has held that the venue for arbitration, as decided by the parties under their contractual agreement would automatically be the seat for arbitration, in the absence of any ‘contra-indicia.’In rejecting jurisdictional objections on its competence to entertain an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A & C Act”) upon noting that Clause 16 of the Contract between the parties had designated Kolkata to be the venue of arbitration and the Court in the City of Kolkata to have exclusive jurisdiction a single-bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held:The parties accepted this agreement to be the final agreement. The fact that venue would be construed as the juridical seat of the arbitration has also been judicially settled where the seat is not specified. There is hence no contra indicia to un-seat the arbitration from the Court in the city of Kolkata which is the High Court at Calcutta. The respondent has not presented any contrary indicia to show that the cause of action has arisen elsewhere and would consequently divest this Court of jurisdiction.”Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To NDPS Accused, Says No Reason To Obligate Them To Rigors Of S.37 In Absence Of Forensic ReportCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 326Case: In the matter of: Sanjay Kashyap & AnrA Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee have granted bail to the petitioners who had been accused under the NDPS Act, upon noting that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which requires a Court to only grant bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused are not guilty and will not reoffend, would not apply to the present case.In observing that although a charge sheet had been filed, the forensic report (“CFSL report”) or even a supplementary charge sheet had not been taken on board due to “institutional latches,” the bench ordered:Although charge-sheet was filed within 180 days, the same was merely lip-service paid to the provisions of the statute. Section 37 of the NDPS Act has to be strictly construed since it operates against the fundamental rights of personal liberty of a person. There is nothing on record to show that till date any CFSL report has been submitted by the investigating authorities. Hence, in the absence of the CFSL report, due to institutional laches, we do not find any reason to obligate the petitioners with the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.NDPS Act | Calcutta High Court Suspends Conviction Of Four, Cites Infirmities In Investigation & Violations Of Mandatory Statutory ProvisionsCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 327Case: Babu Mondal & Ors. vs The State of West BengalThe Calcutta High Court has recently suspended the convictions and 15-year prison sentences of four persons under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (“NDPS Act”), for the alleged possession of commercial quantities of cannabis.In allowing the application for suspension of sentence and bail under Section 389(1) of the CrPC, pending the disposal of the final appeal, a division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Prasenjit Biswas held:There are several facts to prove the faulty investigation made in the present case. The entire search and seizure process of the alleged contraband which is the genesis of the NDPS case, cannot be accepted as credible. The infirmities in the investigation and the violations of the mandatory provisions, dealt above, including of section 42, 52-A of the NDPS Act read with section 100 of the Cr.P.C, persuades this Court to suspend the sentence imposed upon the petitioner/appellants and grant bail to the petitioners/appellants pending hearing of the appeal.All-Time High...

Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: November 2023 [Citations 325- 338]

Srinjoy Das

Tags