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

NOMINAL INDEXDecco Worldwide Post Harvest Holdings B.V & Anr. V The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 148Sujit Kumar Datta v The State of West Bengal & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 149Sutapa Adhikari & Ors v State of West Bengal & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 150Sekhar Kr Roy v Lila Roy & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 151Deepak Chatterjee @ Dipak Chatterjee & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 152Pan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. v Ramnagar Seeds Farm Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 156Altab Hossen Molla v State of West Bengal [WPA(P) 221 of 2023]Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity & Anr. Vs. The Union of India & Ors W.P.A.(P) 237 of 2023Adhir 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)/287/20231. Reasons Are The Foundation Of Any Order": Calcutta High Court Allows Decco's Appeal Against Rejection Of Patent Application.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) 148The 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 InfringementSujit Kumar Datta v The State of West Bengal & Ors [W.P.A(P) No. 239 of 2023]Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 149The 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) 150The 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 CourtCase Title: Sekhar Kr Roy v Lila Roy & Anr (FA 109 of 2018)Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 151The 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 IPCCase Title: Deepak...

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

Srinjoy Das

Tags