Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 15th July To 21st July, 2024

NOMINAL INDEXAxis Bank Limited Versus Indian Cable Net Company Limited & Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 163Government of West Bengal & Anr. Versus Essex Development Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 164K2V2 Hospitality Llp Vs Limton Electro Optics Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 165Future Market Networks Ltd. Vs Laxmi Pat Surana & Anr Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 166The Incoda Vs The General Manager, Metro Railway And Anr. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 167Tamoghna Ghosh Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 168Satyabrata Barik @ Mithu. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr Citaiton: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 169Axis Bank Doesn't Perform Public Functions That Would Subject It To Writ Jurisdiction: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Axis Bank Limited Versus Indian Cable Net Company Limited & OrsCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 163The Calcutta High Court bench of Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has held that Axis Bank does not perform public functions that would subject it to writ jurisdiction. It held that adherence to RBI guidelines by a private bank does not equate to the performance of public duties. The bench held that: “the appellant bank carrying on the business or commercial activity of banking does not discharge any public function or public duty.”2063 Crore Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court Directs West Bengal Government, WBIDC To Pay AmountCase Title: Government of West Bengal & Anr. Versus Essex Development Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 164The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Krishna Rao has rejected the petition made under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the West Bengal Government and West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation claiming fraud in making of the arbitral award. The bench noted that the arbitral tribunal arrived upon the findings after considering the materials placed before it and the submissions made by the respective parties. Further, it noted that the arbitral tribunal recorded all the submissions of the parties in the award. Therefore, the bench dismissed the Section 34 petition. The bench directed the West Bengal Government and West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation to deposit 100% of the awarded sum.Composite Reference To Arbitration Necessary When Dispute Involves Same Subject Matter: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: K2V2 Hospitality Llp Vs Limton Electro Optics Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 165The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held allowed composite reference of two companies to arbitration noting that the two arbitration agreement refer to the self-same demised property. Moreover, it noted that both the agreements were entered into by the same proposed lessee with two co-owners of the self-same property. The bench held that: “if two different references were to be made, there would be ample scope of conflict of decision pertaining to the self-same subject matter between the co-owners of the self-same property.”Supreme Court's Interpretation Of 'Three Months' As 90 Days In Section 34(3) Of Arbitration Act As Obiter Dicta, Not Ratio Decidendi: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Future Market Networks Ltd. Vs Laxmi Pat Surana & AnrCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 166The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta has held that the Supreme Court's observations regarding the interpretation of "three months" in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as 90 days in various cases were not the ratio decidendi but obiter dicta. The bench held that the period of limitation must be computed based on calendar months, therefore, the period of limitation in Section 34(3) would be three months excluding the date of receipt of the arbitral award.Invocation of Arbitration Beyond Stipulated Period In Clause Does Not Frustrate Parties' Intent To Arbitrate: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: The Incoda Vs The General Manager, Metro Railway And Anr.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 167The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the invocation of arbitration after the period defined in the arbitration clause doesn't frustrate the intention of the parties to refer disputes to arbitration. The bench held that the outer limit stipulated in the arbitration clause for invocation of arbitration if failed by the claimant, does not constitute a waiver or a deliberate relinquishment of the claim by the claimant.Calcutta High Court Allows BJP Rally Outside CESC Office Over Alleged Increase In Electricity Prices, Limits Attendance To 1,000 ProtestorsCase: Tamoghna Ghosh Vs. The State of West Bengal & OrsCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 168The Calcutta High Court has allowed a protest by the supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) outside the offices of the Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (CESC) at Victoria House in Kolkata over the...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 15th July To 21st July, 2024

Srinjoy Das