Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 1st-7th April 2024
Srinjoy Das
8 April 2024 6:11 AM GMT
NOMINAL INDEX
M/s Fullerton India Credit Company Limited vs Ms Manju Khati 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 79
United Machinery & Appliances v. Greaves Cotton Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 80
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 79
Case Title: M/s Fullerton India Credit Company Limited vs Ms Manju Khati
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that a certified copy of the original agreement 'attested by a Notary Public' is sufficient to meet the requirement of Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act. Once filed, the courts must refer the parties to arbitration.
Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act provides, “The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.”
The High Court held that the Trial Court wrongly concluded that the Petitioner had failed to produce either the original or a duly certified copy of the agreement as required under the Arbitration Act. However, it was established that the Petitioner did provide a certified copy of the original agreement, attested by a Notary Public. This was deemed sufficient to meet the legal requirements.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 80
Case Title: United Machinery & Appliances v. Greaves Cotton Limited, CS. 2 of 2015
The High Court of Calcutta has dismissed an application filed under Section 8 of the A&C Act by observing that the allegations of fraud and forgery would be serious in nature when the cognizance of the same is take by the magistrate.
The bench of Justice Krishna Rao relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. Ayyasamy vs. A. Paramasiva, (2016) 10 SCC 386 and Rashid Raza vs. Sadaf Akhtar, (2019) 8 SCC 710 to hold that dispute would not be referred to arbitration when the allegations of fraud and forgery are serious in nature and goes to the existence of the agreement containing arbitration clause.
Important Developments
Case No: WPA/4011/2024
Case: THE COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL
The Calcutta High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict in various pleas seeking a probe into the alleged instances of violence against women and land grabbing which had occurred in Sandeshkhali, West Bengal under the watch of former Pradhan Shahjahan Sheikh, and his workers.
A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya were considering public interest litigations seeking an independent probe into the instances of violence alleged against Shahjahan and his men.
Upon hearing the allegations raised by counsel, and reading the affidavits placed on record regarding the sexual assault faced by the women, and land grabbing faced by the people of the area, the Chief Justice orally remarked:
"The entire district administration and ruling dispensation must owe a moral responsibility. Even if [the affidavit] 1% is true it is absolutely shameful. And West Bengal says it is safest for women? If one affidavit is proved to be right all of this falls."
Earlier, the Court had directed the investigation into the attack on ED officials allegedly at the behest of Sheikh's officials to be transferred to the CBI, as well as custody of Shahjahan Sheikh.
Case: Kuntal Ghosh v CBI & connected matters
Case No: CRM (DB) 172 of 2024 & connected matters
The Calcutta High Court has hauled up Bengal's Chief Secretary for not submitting a report on the time required for him to decide over the grant of sanction to prosecute government officials who are being probed in connection with the multi-tier recruitment cash-for-jobs scam.
Upon being told that the report which had been called for by the Court on an earlier occasion had not yet been submitted by the chief secretary, the division bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Gaurang Kanth held:
"Least expectation is for the report to be submitted. This is very painful. The bench is giving a direction [with no response]. We are asking the government pleader to appear at 2pm. If this order also does not get a response, then [we will summon]. Now we have to follow a procedure before summoning officials, so we are recording in this order that we will be constrained to call for his personal appearance."
