Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 08th July To 14th July, 2024

NOMINAL INDEXVodafone Idea Limited Vs Comissioner Of Income Tax Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 159Accuhealth Solutions Private Limited Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 160Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Shalibhadra Cottrade Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 161M/s Zillion Infraprojects Pvt Ltd Vs Bridge and Roof Co India Ltd Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 162Cellular Mobile Service Providers Not Obliged To Deduct TDS On Income Received By Distributors: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 159Case Title: Vodafone Idea Limited Vs Comissioner Of Income TaxThe Calcutta High Court has held that the cellular mobile service providers are not obliged to deduct the tax at source (TDS) on income received by distributors/franchisees from customers.The bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj has relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Bharti Cellular Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-57, Kolkata and Anr. In Which It Was Held That The Assessees Would Not Be Under A Legal Obligation To Deduct Tax At Source On The Income/Profit Component In The Payments Received By The Distributors/Franchisees From The Third Parties/Customers, Or While Selling/Transferring The Pre-Paid Coupons Or Starter-Kits To The Distributors.Cancer Marker Test: Calcutta High Court Holds Accuhealth Solutions Liable For Negligence & Lack Of ExpertiseCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 160Case Title: Accuhealth Solutions Private Limited Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that Accuhealth Solutions Private Limited indicated carelessness, lack of expertise and negligence in conducting the cancer marker test for the patient. The bench held that the diagnostic centre did not possess the necessary capability to perform the test independently and had instead outsourced it to AI Diagnostics.Even Without Further Allegation Of Bias Under Section 12(5) Of Arbitration Act, Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Is Ineligible: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 161Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Shalibhadra Cottrade Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that even a unilateral appointment of the arbitrator, without any further allegation of bias under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, renders the Arbitrator ineligible. The bench held that in addition to the grounds specifically mentioned in Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule unilateral appointment of Arbitrator by one of the parties itself has also been brought under the purview of disqualification by ineligibility.Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Arbitration Clause As Unconstitutional, Upholds Subcontractor's Right To Independent Dispute ResolutionCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 162Case Title: M/s Zillion Infraprojects Pvt Ltd Vs Bridge and Roof Co India Ltd The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has struck part of the arbitration clause as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The clause prevented the subcontractor from participating in arbitration proceedings despite having to bear the expenses for its claims. Further, it allowed the Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL) to unilaterally decide whether a dispute could be referred to arbitration, thus depriving the subcontractor of an independent right to raise disputes.

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 08th July To 14th July, 2024

Srinjoy Das