Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 13th May To 19th May, 2024

NOMINAL INDEXBadal Kumar Mandal vs. Chairman Indian Museum Board Of Trust And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 117Malda District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Association and others Vs. The Election Commission of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 118Rita Ghoshdastidar v. St. Joseph & Mary's School and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 119MFAR Constructions Private Limited vs Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Development Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 120Paresh Ghosh & Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 121Bmg Gulf Fzc Vs Quippo Oil And Gas Infrastructure Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 122Malda District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Association and others vs. The Election Commission of India and others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 123Balgopal Merchants Private Limited Versus The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 124Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) Versus Shri Rajendra Kumar Damani @ Raju Damani 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 125Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Asansol Versus Sri Manoj Parmar And Others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 126ORDERS/JUDGEMENTSRecovery Of Excess Payment To Employee On Ground Of Erroneous Pay Scale, Cannot Be Made At End Of Service: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 117Case Name : Badal Kumar Mandal vs. Chairman Indian Museum Board Of Trust And Ors.A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Hon'ble Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Badal Kumar Mandal vs. Chairman Indian Museum Board Of Trust And Ors., held that irrespective of whether the upgradation of pay scale and posts is made contrary to law, recovery of any excess payment received by the employee on the ground of such revision cannot be made either at the end of the service of the employee or thereafter.We Don't Operate In A Totalitarian State, Govt Can't Exercise Blanket Power Over Every Institution Under The Sun: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 118 Case: Malda District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Association and others Vs. The Election Commission of India and others The Calcutta High Court has recently allowed a plea by the Associations, working for the Malda Districts Central Cooperative Bank and the Mugberia Central Cooperative Bank (petitioners), directing that the Election Commission of India (ECI) shall not requisition them for the purpose of any parliamentary elections, since the organisations which they worked in, were not created by any statute or under any law. A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held: "We do not operate in a totalitarian state and, as such, it cannot be held that the Government has blanket power over any and every institution or concern or undertaking or operating under the Sun within the territory of India for any purpose whatsoever, unless so stipulated specifically in the Constitution or any specific law. For the limited purpose under discussion thus, Article 324 has to be read in conjunction with Section 159 of the Representation of People Act. The bank cannot be said to be one controlled, partially or wholly, or financed by any Government."Writ Challenging Termination Of Teaching Staff From Private Unaided Educational Institution Not Maintainable If Dispute Involves Private Contract Matters: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 119Case: Rita Ghoshdastidar v. St. Joseph & Mary's School and Ors.A single bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya while deciding a writ petition in the case of Rita Ghoshdastidar v. St. Joseph & Mary's School and Ors. has held that a writ petition challenging the termination of a teaching staff member from a private unaided educational institution is not maintainable if dispute primarily involves private contractual matters.Attempts By Arbitrator To Reach Settlement Cant Be Termed As 'Conciliation Proceeding' Under Part III: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 120Case Title: MFAR Constructions Private Limited vs Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Development LimitedThe Calcutta High Court division bench of Justice I. P. Mukerji and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury held that attempts made by the arbitrator to encourage the parties to reach a settlement cannot be termed as 'conciliation proceeding' under Part-III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that conciliation is seen as an independent proceeding or an alternative dispute redressal forum the object of which is to reach a settlement between the parties. It has its own procedure and ultimate result.Evidence Of Prosecution Witness Being Inconsistent With Medical Evidence Is Most Fundamental Defect In Prosecution's Case: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 121 Case: Paresh Ghosh & Ors. Vs The State of West BengalThe Calcutta High Court has recently held that if there is an inconsistency between the evidence of the witness for the prosecution and medical evidence, it would signify a fundamental defect in the case of...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 13th May To 19th May, 2024

Srinjoy Das