Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 22nd January To 28th January, 2024

NOMINAL INDEXBGM and M-RPL-JMCT (JV) v Eastern Coalfields Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 24Sardar Lalu Singh v The State of West Bengal and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 25Pacharia Exports Private Limited Vs. The Special Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 26Ranaghat OBR Brihattara Graduate Teachers' Association -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 27In the matter of : Ranjit Das @ Mohan Das Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 28Parties Must Clearly State Intention To Arbitrate Within Agreement, Usage Of Words Such As 'May,' 'If', Or 'But' Not Unequivocal: Calcutta HCCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 24 Case: BGM and M-RPL-JMCT (JV) v Eastern Coalfields LimitedThe Calcutta High Court has recently held that parties to an arbitration agreement must clearly state their intention to arbitrate through a resounding yes and there cannot be any ifs and buts or an undecided mumble.A single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya while dismissing a plea for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, held:Section 11 of the 1996 Act is one of the earlier interventions by a Court on the presumption of the existence of an arbitration clause. The Court must hence ensure the existence of an arbitration agreement before flagging of the road to the award and beyond. The parties cannot set forth on the procedural journey if there is no arbitration agreement. In the present case, the arbitration agreement muddies the waters with regard to the immediate and unequivocal reference of the dispute to arbitration. The word “may” in the relevant part of the clause gives an option to the parties to either refer the dispute to arbitration or hold back on the arbitration. The word “may” makes the clause conditional on a future event/s or to the other parts of the clause and gives the parties the option to resile from the clause.Violates Right To Life & Amounts To Ostracisation: Calcutta HC Sets Aside 'Frivolous' Excommunication From Agrahari Sikh Community, Imposes ₹1.5 Lakh CostCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 25 Case: Sardar Lalu Singh v The State of West Bengal and othersThe Calcutta High Court has set aside an order of excommunication by the 'Gurudwara Chhota Singh Sangat,' against the petitioner, excommunicating him from the entire Agrahari Sikh community due to an alleged matrimonial dispute between the petitioner's son and his wife.In setting aside the order of excommunication and directing the respondent office-bearers to pay costs of Rs 1.5 lakhs to the petitioner due to the harassment suffered by him, a single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held:Excommunication from an entire community, not pertaining to religious persecution alone but also the social life and relations of the petitioner is such a stringent action, which touches the normal life of a person and the right to live with dignity. Petitioner [cannot] be held responsible for a dispute between his son and his daughter-in-law. Even if there is such a dispute, the same cannot castigate either of the parties to the said dispute, more so at the behest of a Gurudwara. For such innocuous reason, the extreme step of social, religious and economic excommunication unleashed on the petitioner is palpably violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.Payment To Third Party Instead Of Selling Dealer, ITC Not Allowable: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 26Case Title: Pacharia Exports Private Limited Vs. The Special Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal & Ors.The Calcutta High Court has held that the writ petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of input tax credit as he has not paid the amount to the selling dealer but to a third party.The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya has observed that the writ petitioner is precluded from adding words to a statute to state that he will be entitled to the benefit of the input tax credit, though he has not paid the amount to the selling dealer to a third party based on certain instructions.Madhyamik Exams 2024 | Calcutta HC Declines Plea Challenging Revised Exam Timings, Directs State & Secondary Examination Board To Ensure Students' ConvenienceCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 27Case: Ranaghat OBR Brihattara Graduate Teachers' Association -Vs- The State of West Bengal & OrsThe Calcutta High Court has declined a plea by an association of teachers challenging a decision of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) whereby the timing of the ensuing Madhyamik Pariksha (SE) 2024 had been rescheduled from 11.45 am-3 pm to 9:45 a.m- 1 p.m.While observing that the decision of the WBBSE, which was communicated only 2 weeks before the commencement of the exams could have been notified in advance, a single bench of Justice Biswajit Basu directed the State to ensure that all possible assistance was provided to the exam-taking students and laid down guidelines for the same.It held: The Board should have...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 22nd January To 28th January, 2024

Srinjoy Das

Tags