Calcutta High Court Weekly Round Up: June 3 To June 11, 2023

NOMINAL INDEX

1. Decco Worldwide Post Harvest Holdings B.V & Anr. V The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 148
2. Sujit Kumar Datta v The State of West Bengal & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 149
3. Sutapa Adhikari & Ors v State of West Bengal & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 150
4. Sekhar Kr Roy v Lila Roy & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 151
5. Deepak Chatterjee @ Dipak Chatterjee & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 152
6. Pan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. v Ramnagar Seeds Farm Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 156
   
7. Altab Hossen Molla v State of West Bengal [WPA(P) 221 of 2023]
8. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity & Anr. Vs. The Union of India & Ors W.P.A.(P) 237 of 2023
9. Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury Vs The West Bengal State Election Commission And Ors. WPA(P)/286/2023 with Suvendu Adhikari And Anr. Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. WPA(P)/287/2023

Case Title: Decco Worldwide Post Harvest Holdings B.V & Anr. V The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr (AID 11 of 2021)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 148

The Calcutta High Court set aside an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting a Patent Application filed by agrochemical multinational UPL's postharvest division Decco Worldwide for their invention titled “A fungicidal treatment for black sigatoka,” to prevent leaf-disease.

In dealing with Section 10(4) of the Patent Act, the Court held that there was no opportunity for disclosure afforded to the applicants, since at the hearing before the Controller, “there was no whisper about any objection concerning the disclosure being insufficient.”

Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur remanded the respondent authorities to adjudicate the patent application afresh including the question of patentability, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant; although the observations made by the single-judge bench would be non-binding for the re-appraisal of the application.

2. Calcutta High Court Dismisses PIL Against Softwares Like 'Pegasus' Allegedly Used For Privacy Infringement

Sujit Kumar Datta v The State of West Bengal & Ors [W.P.A(P) No. 239 of 2023]

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 149

The Calcutta High Court dismissed a PIL calling upon it to decide the issue of individual’s right to privacy allegedly being violated by spyware such as Pegasus, said to be installed on people’s personal electronic devices without their knowledge.

A bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnaman and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya opined that such blanket directions against the use of modern technology for allegedly being violative of the fundamental right to privacy of individuals could not be passed. Further, according to the Chief Justice, due to the vague nature of the submissions and prayers of the petitioner, the Court could not arrive at the specific questions of law involved. However, the petitioner was directed to approach the appropriate authorities in case his own right to privacy was being affected.

3. Police Can't Misuse S.160 CrPC To Arrest Persons Unconnected With Alleged Offence: Calcutta High Court In Plea By Suvendu Adhikari’s Acquaintances

Case title: Sutapa Adhikari & Ors v State of West Bengal & Anr (CRR 2464 of 2022)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 150

The Calcutta High Court has made it clear that Section 160 of the CrPC which empowers the police to require attendance of witnesses cannot be misused to take coercive steps against persons not connected with the alleged offence in a plea filed by relatives and acquaintances of Leader of Opposition in West Bengal, Suvendu Adhikari.

The bench protected the rights of the petitioner by holding that if any future notices under Section 160 CrPC were to be issued in relation to the investigation, and if the petitioners were needed to be interviewed pertaining to the same, then they must be given a sufficient notice period.

4. Husband Acquiring Property In Wife's Name Does Not Necessarily Imply Benami Transaction: Calcutta High Court

Case Title: Sekhar Kr Roy v Lila Roy & Anr (FA 109 of 2018)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 151

The Calcutta High Court clarified that the mere transfer of money from a husband to his wife for the purchase of property would not qualify as a benami transaction. In other words, even if it is proved that husband paid the consideration money, it will have to be proved that the husband really intended to enjoy the full benefit of the title in him alone in order to imply the existence of a benami transaction.

It held that, to prove a benami transaction, the burden of proof would lay heavily on the party claiming the existence of such a transaction. In the absence of any proof regarding the same, the preponderance of probability shall rest in favour of the person in whose name the property was registered.

5. 'Never Resided With In-Laws, Question Of Cruelty Doesn't Arise': Calcutta High Court Quashes Woman's Complaint U/S 498A IPC

Case Title: Deepak Chatterjee @ Dipak Chatterjee & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr (CRR 261 of 2020)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 152

The Calcutta High Court quashed a domestic violence complaint filed by a woman against her in-laws for allegedly trying to strangulate her, upon noting that the parties never resided together.

The bench relied on the case of Prakash Singh Badal v State of Punjab AIR 2007 SC 124 and reiterated that the ultimate test would be whether allegations such as the one made by the respondent have substance. There being no merit to her claim due to have never resided with the petitioners, the respondent’s complaint was found to be baseless and thereby quashed.

6. Plant Varieties Protection & Farmers Rights Act | Civil Courts Has No Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Variety Registration: Calcutta High Court.

Case Title: Pan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. v Ramnagar Seeds Farm Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. FMAT 11 of 2023/ CAN 1 of 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 156

The Calcutta High Court has held that jurisdiction of civil courts is barred by Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 insofar as deciding validity of registration of a variety is concerned.

A division bench of Justice IP Mukherji and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury observed Section 89 provides that the civil court would not have any jurisdiction over any matter which the Registrar of Plant Varieties has the power to determine.

According to the bench, once a plant variety has been registered under Section 24 of the Act it cannot be subjected to the test of validity by civil court even if such a test is made prima facie. It noted that only the Registrar under the Act would have the power to rectify, alter or cancel the registration of a plant variety on the grounds of invalidity.

1. Local Authorities Must Conduct On-Spot Assessment Prior To Grant Of Excise License: PIL In Calcutta High Court Against Resto-Bar

Case Title: Altab Hossen Molla v State of West Bengal [WPA(P) 221 of 2023]

A PIL filed before the Calcutta High Court challenged the grant of a “restriction-free” license to a restaurant-cum-bar located near an educational institution and temple under Section 85 and 86 of the Bengal Excise (Selection of New Sites and Grant of License for Retail Sale of Liquor and Certain Other Intoxicants) Act 2003.

The Bench passed an order seeking for a report of the District Magistrate after conducting an on-spot evaluation of the area, and observed that “the sale of liquor is Res Extra Commercium. [It is] not a fundamental or a constitutional right, but merely a legal right. Hence it may be regulated strictly and in accordance with the rules as notified.”

Case Title: Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity & Anr. Vs. The Union of India & Ors W.P.A.(P) 237 of 2023

The Calcutta High Court has made it clear that while it is essential to eliminate illegitimate parties from allegedly benefitting from the Centre's MGNREGA scheme, it is also the duty of the government to ensure that genuine workers do not suffer the brunt of it. In March 2022, the Centre stopped release of funds under the scheme and directed that wages will be paid by the State Government from its own resources till it submits a satisfactory Action Taken Report regarding the use of funds.

The petitioners, who claim to be workers under the scheme said they have not received their wages since December 2021, accumulating to a total of Rs.276484.47 lakh in unpaid wages over the 18-month period.

The Bench directed the Central and State governments to ensure that if any genuine persons have offered themselves to work under the MGNREGA and have completed the work satisfactorily, they are entitled to the disbursement of their wages in accordance with the principles of the Act. The Chief Justice reiterated that such a scheme that is meant for the benefit of workers should not be used in a way that is to their detriment.

3. Five Days Prima Facie Inadequate To File Nominations For Panchayat Elections: Calcutta High Court.

Case Title: Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury Vs The West Bengal State Election Commission And Ors. WPA(P)/286/2023 with Suvendu Adhikari And Anr. Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. WPA(P)/287/2023

The Calcutta High Court held an urgent hearing in two PILs moved by Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury and BJP's Suvendu Adhikari regarding the upcoming Panchayat elections slated to be held on July 8.

A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnaman and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya observed that prima facie, as pointed out by the petitioners, five days’ time provided for filing nomination papers is inadequate and asked the State Election Commission to reconsider the same.

The Court directed the State Election Commission to take note of all the concerns expressed in instant Writ Petitions and file their response as a report before the Court on 12^th June 2023.