Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: October 2024

NOMINAL INDEXPorel Dass Water & Effluent Control Private Limited vs. The West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited and Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 219Dasrathbhai Narsangbhai Chaudhary @ Dasrath Chaudhary & Another Versus The State of West Bengal & Another Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 220Hriday Kumar Das Vs State of West Bengal cCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 221The State of West Bengal -vs- Union of India & Anr Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 222AB Enterprises Vs Union of India Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 223M/s. Sharma Transport Agency and another vs. Damodar Valley Corporation and others Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 224PCIT vs. Bothra Shipping Services Private Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 225Joint Platform of Doctors & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 226Biswa Bhusan Nandi Vs. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 227 In the matter of: Idul Mia. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 228ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS90-Day Timeline In Section 18(5) Of MSME Act Is Directory : Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Porel Dass Water & Effluent Control Private Limited vs. The West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited and Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 219The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the 90-day timeline for completion of the arbitral proceeding under Section 18(5) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) is directory, not mandatory, and does not terminate or affect the validity of mandate of the MSME Facilitation Council as Arbitrator. It further held that the Court does not have jurisdiction to substitute the Council or its nominee by another Arbitrator under Section 18(3) of the MSME Act, as the Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Facilitation Council and overrides Section 29A(6), Section 14(1) and Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act).Non-Payment Of Outstanding Dues Towards Salary Or Performance Bonus By Employer Does Not Amount To Criminal Breach Of Trust: Calcutta HCCase: Dasrathbhai Narsangbhai Chaudhary @ Dasrath Chaudhary & Another Versus The State of West Bengal & Another Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 220The Calcutta High Court has recently held that non-payment of outstanding dues towards Outstanding Salary or Performance Bonus by a company does not amount to a Criminal breach of trust.A single bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta relied on the Supreme Court case of Binod Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and Another, and held: "From the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that non-payment of outstanding dues towards Outstanding Salary or Performance Bonus by the company does not amount to Criminal breach of trust."Accordingly, the Court quashed the case against the petitioners filed under Sections 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also set aside the summons issued against them.S.107 CGST Act | Appellate Authority Cannot Suo Moto Enhance Tax Liability: Calcutta HCCase title: Hriday Kumar Das Vs State of West Bengal Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 221The Calcutta High Court recently set aside an order of the GST Appellate Authority, suo motu enhancing tax liability on an assessee, without following the procedure under Section 107(11) of the CGST/ WBGST Act. Section 107 of the Act prescribes procedure for filing and adjudication of appeals by the Appellate Authority. Sub-section 11 thereof stipulates that the Appellate Authority can confirm, modify or annul the order appealed against, provided that an order enhancing any fee/ penalty/ fine shall not be passed unless the appellant is given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.Bring West Bengal AIIMS At Par With AIIMS Delhi: Calcutta High Court Tells Centre Over Lack Of Post-Mortem FacilitiesCase: The State of West Bengal -vs- Union of India & AnrCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 222The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday commented that the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Kalyani, West Bengal, should be brought up to the standard of the AIIMS in Delhi or Rishikesh.A single bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh made these observations while hearing a plea wherein he had directed the post-mortem of a minor girl who was raped and murdered in Bengal's Jaynagar area, to take place at the AIIMS hospital in Kalyani.Arbitral Tribunal Acted With Patent Illegality, Against Indian Law In Awarding Reimbursement Of Service Tax Along With Interest: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: AB Enterprises Vs Union of IndiaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 223The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed that award passed by Arbitral Tribunal was tainted with patent illegality and contravened the fundamental policy of Indian law. The award was challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (act). The court set aside the award in which South Eastern Railway (railway) was directed to reimburse the respondent towards...

Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: October 2024

Srinjoy Das