Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: February 2024

NOMINAL INDEXParesh Chandra Ganguly (represented by LRs) v CBI 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 32Nilanjan Mitra v The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 33West Bengal Board of Primary Education & ors.- Versus - Md. Rafique & anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 34ANIMESH BHATTACHARYA v THE BAR ASSOCIATION HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA AND ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 35Suresh Dhanuka vs Shahnaz Husain 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 36Soma Ghosh @ Soma Barman @ Soma (Barman) Ghosh & Ors. versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 37 Merlin Projects Limited and another v The State of West Bengal and others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 38 M/S Saraf Trexim Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 39 Utpal Kanti Karan v State of West Bengal & Ors & connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 40 X vs State of West Bengal 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 41 CBI v Binod Kr Maheshwari 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 42 R S Fuel Pvt Ltd vs Ankit Metal And Power Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 43 Mr. Raj Sahai vs. the State of West Bengal & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 44Rolta Infrastructure and Technology Services Private Limited vs Department of Information Technology And Electronics, Government of West Bengal 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 45Ex. CT. Vijay Prakash v Union of India and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 46Sanjay Biswas v State 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 47Tarit Mitra and Anr. vs Sharad Goenka 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 48M/s Arati Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 49SANTU PAN v STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 50 VHP v State of WB 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 51 The Secretary, E & NF Railway Junior Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Eastern Railway vs Sri Jyotish Chandra Sarkar & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 52 Suvendu Adhikari & Anr. v State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 53Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited. Vs. Uma Earth Movers and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 54 RKD Niraj JV vs The Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 55 Neeta Kumari v Union of India & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 56 Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. v Steel Authority of India Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 57 Afzal Khan @ Fazo and another v State of West Bengal and others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 58 Pranoy Roy v State of West Bengal 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 59ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS[S.125 CrPC] Maintenance Provisions Being Welfare Legislation Need Not Be Construed To Be Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Calcutta High CourtCase: Paresh Chandra Ganguly (represented by LRs) v CBICitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 32The Calcutta High Court has recently held that the provisions for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC are welfare legislations and that they need not be proven beyond reasonable doubt as their criminal law counterparts.In refusing to quash a claim for maintenance against the petitioner, a single bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held:Conduct of wife/opposite party during her stay at her matrimonial house may not be the sole parameter to be considered before granting maintenance under 125 Cr.P.C. Said provision being a welfare legislation is not supposed to be construed what is likely to be construed to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt under section 498A I.P.C. or Under Section 406 of the IPC. I find that this is not a fit case where invoking jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure the present proceeding, can be quashed on the basis of the judgment passed in favour of the petitioner wherein criminal proceeding under section 498A/406/34 was quashed.Misdirected Police Investigation: Calcutta HC Directs CID To Probe Death Of Wife Burnt Alive While Husband Showed Ordeal To Her Relative On Video CallCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 33Case: Nilanjan Mitra v The State of West Bengal & Ors.The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday took note of an unfortunate incident involving a husband, who video-called his wife's relative to show the sight of his wife burning to death, instead of intervening or saving her.In observing that the police had fallen short in their investigation, a single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta transferred the investigation to the CID and held:It appears that the call went on for at least one minute. If a person catches fire and her husband is in a position to save her, but chooses not to do so and do something else, it has to be explored whether this amounts to contributing to the death of the victim. At least, this circumstance should have inspired the Investigating Officer to find out whether the fire could have also been caused by the husband. These aspects have been given a total go-bye by the Investigating Officer. Non-seizure of relevant articles is another issue that cannot be satisfactorily explained by the Investigating Officer. In fact, he relies on the statement of the accused to provide an explanation. The investigations appears to have been totally misdirected."Misplaced Sympathy": Calcutta HC Sets Aside Direction For Fresh Viva & Aptitude Test Of TET Candidate Who Failed To Attend Due To Father's IllnessCitation: 2024 LiveLaw...

Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: February 2024

Srinjoy Das