Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: December 2023 [Citations 339-351]

NOMINAL INDEXManik Brahma Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 339Rubi Khatun Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 340Manish Todi vs Pawan Agarwal 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 341New Kenilworth Hotel Private Limited and another v State of West Bengal and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 342Gopal Seth Vs. Election Commission of India and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 343Soumen Nandy v State of West Bengal & ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 344Somabrata Mandal v Bar Council of West Bengal and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 345UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED vs. ARVIND KUMAR NEWAR AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 346Black Diamond Resources & Anr. Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 347Surya Sankar Barik v The State of West Bengal and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 348Sri Dilip Ghosh @ Dilip Kumar Ghosh & Anr. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 349Sangrami Joutha Mancha and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 350 M/s. Mehrotra Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v South Eastern Railway 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 351'Political Outfits Of Different Hues Entitled To Level Playing Field': Calcutta High Court Allows Public Meeting In Purba MedinipurCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 339Case: Manik Brahma Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.The Calcutta High Court has allowed a plea seeking to hold a public meeting, upon noting that organisations, including political parties of different hues, are entitled to a level playing field. A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta observed that while citizens possessed the right to peacefully assemble under the Constitution, the same would be subject to reasonable restrictions.Calcutta High Court Extends Police Protection To Family Of Congress Worker Killed In Panchayat Poll Violence Upon Finding They Were Being Threatened By AccusedCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 340 Case: Rubi Khatun Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.The Calcutta High Court has extended the police protection granted to the family of an Indian National Congress worker who was allegedly killed by members and workers of the ruling political dispensation. In a plea by the slain worker's wife, a single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta directed the local police authorities to ensure the safety of the petitioner, upon noting from mobile tower location records that she was being threatened by the accused to withdraw her complaint. Calcutta High Court Dismisses Plea For Appointing Arbitrator, Says Time-Barred Claim Cannot Be Resurrected By S.43(4) Of A&C ActCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 341 Case: Manish Todi vs Pawan AgarwalThe Calcutta High Court has recently held that Section 43(4) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, (1996 Act) must defer to the provisions of the Limitation Act and that the period of limitation cannot be extended to create a new window after the expiry of the limitation. In dismissing a plea for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act as time-barred, a single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held: Section 43(4), simply put, excludes the time from commencement of arbitration to the date of setting aside of the arbitral award...the petitioner's recourse to section 43(4) of the 1996 Act, even if applied to the facts, does not come to the petitioner's rescue since the petitioner would lag behind the limitation period by 4 years 3 months. The question of limitation must also be decided on the underlying principles of the Limitation Act and discounting the existence of an arbitration clause.Classification Of Private & Public Companies In Excise Rules For Exemption From Payment Of License Fee Is Ultra Vires The Constitution: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 342Case: New Kenilworth Hotel Private Limited and another v State of West Bengal and othersThe Calcutta High Court has recently directed the West Bengal State Excise Department to refund a sum of approximately Rs 92 lakhs to the Kenilworth Hotel Private Limited, which were levied as excise fees for 'change in management' upon the death or retirement of a member.In striking off the 'unconstitutional and discriminatory provisions' under the Excise Rules, which allowed for the levy of such fees from only private companies and not public companies, a single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held:The intention in the present case is to ensure the level-playing field guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution in terms of treating a Private Limited Company on an equal plane; specifically when the basis for creating a distinction for the required purpose is found to be absent. The sum of Rs. 64.50 lakhs which was paid and the further sum of Rs. 5.5 lakhs, which was paid subsequent to filing of the present writ petition, aggregates to Rs. 70 lakhs.Not Essential Criterion For Election: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Plea Against BJP MLA For Allegedly Falsifying Educational QualificationsCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 343 Case: Gopal Seth Vs. Election Commission of India and...

Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: December 2023 [Citations 339-351]

Srinjoy Das