Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 29th April To 05th May, 2024

NOMINAL INDEXRKD Niraj JV & Ors v. Union of India & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 100Sudarsan Mandal and Another v The State of West Bengal and others 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 101Meleveetil Damodaran v. UpHealth Holdings Inc 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 102AKASH SHARMA VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 103Partha Chatterjee. -vs.- Enforcement Directorate 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 104Dr. Tapas Kumar Mandal Vs. UOI & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 105Harendra Nath Bishayi vs State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 106M/s. Dalhousie Jute Company Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 107Animesh Singha Mahapatra and Ors. vs State of WB and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 108Saurav Krishna Basu vs State of West Bengal 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 109Sk. Ekbal @ Ekbal Sk. vs The State of West Bengal and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 110Orders/JudgementsConstitution Of Arbitral Tribunal Is Not A Bar On A Party's Right To Approach Section 9 Court For Implementation Of Its Order: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 100Case Title: RKD Niraj JV & Ors v. Union of India & OrsThe High Court of Calcutta has held that constitution of arbitral tribunal is not a bar on a party's right to approach Section 9 Court for implementation of its order. The bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya held that bar under Section 9(3) which proscribe Section 9 remedy upon constitution of arbitral tribunal would not apply when the Court is reapproached for the enforcement of an order passed before the constitution of the tribunal. The Court held that enforcement of an order passed by the Court under Section 9 cannot be sought before the arbitral tribunal under Section 17, therefore, the remedy before the tribunal would not be efficacious and bar under Section 9(3) would not apply.Law Doesn't Discriminate Between Individual Women, Couples Seeking IVF; No Requirement For Sperm/Oocyte To Come From Couple Themselves: Calcutta HCCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 101 Case No: Sudarsan Mandal and Another v The State of West Bengal and othersThe Calcutta High Court has recently held that in cases of in-vitrio fertilisation (IVF), it is not mandatory that either the sperm or the oocyte must come from the couple seeking IVF themselves. A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya perused the rules under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (Act) and allowed a plea by a husband who along with his wife sought to conceive through IVF, after losing their teenage daughter at a young age. The couple was facing difficulties due to the husband being 59 years old, and above the limit for IVF according to the Act, while the wife being 46 years old was eligible for the same. In A Post Award Section 9 Application, The Court Cannot Comment On The Correctness Of The Arbitral Award: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 102Case Title: Meleveetil Damodaran v. UpHealth Holdings IncThe Calcutta High Court has held that while hearing a post-award application under Section 9 of the A&C Act, the Court would not have the jurisdiction to decide on the correctness of the award. The Division Bench of Justices I.P. Mukerji and Biswaroop Chowdhury held that the Court would not adjudicate on whether the damages awarded in the arbitral award are correct or not.Plea In Calcutta High Court Seeks Extension Of Metro Service Timings, Says Last Train's Timing Being Earlier Than All Major Cities Causes Inconvenience To CommutersCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 103Case: AKASH SHARMA VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORSThe Calcutta High Court disposed of a PIL seeking an extension of metro timings in Kolkata by directing the railway authorities to consider the petitioner's prayer for an extension of the timings for the last metro by 45 minutes every day.A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya said:"While the domain of running metro services is the expertise of the railways and the court cannot comment on the same, we direct the authorities to consider the representation made by the petitioner for extension of metro timings by 45 minutes, till 10:30pm for the benefit of the commuters."Calcutta High Court Denies Bail To Former WB Education Minister Partha Chatterjee In Cash-For-Jobs ScamCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 104Case: Partha Chatterjee. -vs.- Enforcement DirectorateThe Calcutta High Court has declined the bail prayer of former Education Minister and Member of Legislative Assembly Partha Chatterjee in the cash-for-jobs recruitment scam, involving the illegal recruitment of Assistant Teachers under the West Bengal Board of Primary Education.A single bench upon going through the evidence including the amounts of money and assets, jewellery seized from Chatterjee and co-accused Arpita Mukherjee denied the bail application.Person Has No Right To Be Promoted But Has Fundamental Right To Be Considered For Promotion: Calcutta High CourtCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 105Case Name- Dr. Tapas Kumar Mandal Vs. UOI & OrsA single judge bench of the...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 29th April To 05th May, 2024

Srinjoy Das