Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 26th February-03rd March, 2024

NOMINAL INDEXCholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited. Vs. Uma Earth Movers and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 54RKD Niraj JV vs The Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 55Neeta Kumari v Union of India & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 56Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. v Steel Authority of India Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 57Afzal Khan @ Fazo and another v State of West Bengal and others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 58Pranoy Roy v State of West Bengal 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 59Janak Ram v State 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 60ORDERS/JUDGEMENTSCivil Court And Commercial Division Of High Court Has Concurrent Jurisdiction To Entertain Section 9 Petition If Dispute Amount Is B/w Rs. 10 Lakh & Rs. 1 Crore: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 54Case: Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited. Vs. Uma Earth Movers and AnrThe Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that both Principal Civil Court and Commercial Division of the High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain Section 9 petition if the claim amount is between Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 1 crore. It rejected the contention that the City Civil Court doesn't have jurisdiction to receive or try the first application under Section 9.GCC Clause For Appointment OF Three Gazetted Railway Officers Panel For Arbitration Violates Section 12(5) A&C: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 55Case Title: RKD Niraj JV vs The Union Of India.The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that the clause in General Conditions of Contract stipulating appointment of a panel of three gazetted railway officers for arbitration violated Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with the Fifth and Seventh Schedules of the Act.Differentiating Between Contractual & Permanent Employees For Purpose Of Maternity Leave Is Impermissible: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 56 Case: Neeta Kumari v Union of India & OrsThe Calcutta High Court has recently held that it is impermissible and violative of the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, to differentiate between contractual employees and permanent employees for the purpose of extending maternity leave. A single bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury held:On the question of a woman's right to child birth and maternity leave no differentiation is permissible between regular and contractual employees of the respondent no.2. Denial of grant of maternity leave to the petitioner constitutes a discriminatory would tantamount to compel an employee to work during her advanced pregnancy, notwithstanding the same may ultimately endanger both her and her foetus. If the same is permitted, the object of social justice would stand deviated.[Arbitration & Conciliation Act] S.29A Preserves Arbitral Efficacy, Guards Against Those Who Put Making Of Award On Back-Burner: Calcutta HCCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 57 Case: Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. v Steel Authority of India LtdThe Calcutta High Court has recently held that Section 29 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, ensures that the arbitral tribunal acts in consonance with the stakeholders to ensure that an award is made within the prescribed timelines. A single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that in the present case, the arbitrator had informed the parties about the prescribed time for declaration of the award, and rejected the respondents contention that arbitration had to commence de novo due to expiration of mandate under Section 29A.Calcutta High Court Allows Premature Release Of Prisoner Incarcerated For 23 Yrs, Says Refusal Would Amount To 'Social Crime'Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 58 Case: Afzal Khan @ Fazo and another v State of West Bengal and othersThe Calcutta High Court has recently ordered the release of a prisoner who had been incarcerated for more than 23 years upon being convicted of kidnapping a minor and being part of organized crime. Upon noting the reformed state of the prisoner after his prolonged incarceration, a single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held: What the petitioner no. 1 did in his 20's at the time of his conviction cannot be sufficient basis for assuming what he will do after his release, more so, since an alternative source of income by agriculture has been clearly portrayed. Our society cannot cast a double stigma on the petitioner no. 1 by punishing him again in refusing premature release and refusing him an opportunity to reintegrate in main-stream society. Such refusal, if comes about, will also be a social crime against the petitioner no. 1 and cannot be approved by a court of law.High Court Allows BJP To Hold Protest Against Unrest In Sandeshkhali, Sets Aside Kolkata Police's OrderCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 59 Case: Pranoy Roy v State of West BengalThe Calcutta High Court has allowed a plea moved by the office secretary of the West Bengal wing of the Bharatiya Janata Party to hold a protest against the unrest that has recently unfolded...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 26th February-03rd March, 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK