Calcutta High Court Weekly Round Up: June 12 To June 18, 2023

NOMINAL INDEXAtindra Nath Mondal v State of WB and ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 156Suvendu Adhikari & Ors v. WB State Election Commission 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 157Sri Santosh Saha and Anr vs The Managing Director, Calcutta State Transport Corporation 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 158Dinesh Kumar Birla v Institute of Cost Accountants of India and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 159Apollo Multispeciality Hospitals Limited & Anr. vs. West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 160Abdul Maleque Molla & Ors. v. West Bengal State Election Commission & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 161Suvendu Adhikari & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 162Sunit Sarkar v. Commissioner, WB SEC 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 163State of West Bengal v Soumen Nandy 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 164WB Panchayat Elections: State Election Commission Tells Calcutta High Court It Can Extend Nomination Period By One DayWB State Election Commission Prima Facie Trying To Make Order On Panchayat Elections 'Unworkable': Calcutta High Court Warns Of Contempt1. Trial Courts Not Mute Spectators, Judicial Restraint Doesn't Disentitle Them From Taking Exception To Advocate's Extreme Conduct: Calcutta High CourtCase: Atindra Nath Mondal v State of WB and ors CRR 919 of 2023 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 156The Calcutta High Court has observed that "judicial restraint and discipline" does not mean that even in extreme cases a Judicial Officer is not entitled to take exception against non-conforming acts of an Advocate representing a party. A single-judge bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed that where the Counsel of any of the parties disturbs judicial function of a Court, the Judge has every right to pass an order by caution to the Advocate concerned. Advocates for the petitioner attempted to stop the functioning of the trial court due to not getting an earlier date of hearing. The trial judge had warned the advocates of severe consequences if they continued to disrupt proceedings. Apparently offended by the observations of the Trial judge, the advocates approached the High Court and complained of the ‘disgraceful’ observations of the trial judge.2. WB Panchayat Elections: Calcutta High Court Says Can't Issue Mandamus To Extend Date For Filing Nominations, SEC Should Exercise DiscretionCase Title: Suvendu Adhikari and Ors v. WB State Election Commission Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 157In petitions concerning the upcoming Panchayat elections in West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court refused to direct the State Election Commission to extend the deadline for filing nominations.The division bench of Chief Justice Sivagnaman and Justice Hiranmay Bhattcharya had earlier said that five days’ time provided for filing nomination papers is prima facie inadequate. However, in its order it said writ of Mandamus cannot be issued for extending the date for filing of nominations.The development came in petitions filed by Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury and BJP's Suvendu Adhikari. The writ petitioners had raised several points of contention such as lack of reasonable notice period for filing nominations, deployment of central reserve forces to maintain law and order, employment of contractual workers as polling officers, among others.3. Claimant Not Required To Establish Negligence Of Offending Vehicle U/S 163A Motor Vehicles Act: Calcutta High CourtCase title: Sri Santosh Saha and Anr vs The Managing Director, Calcutta State Transport Corporation FMA 3357 of 2015Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 158The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal State Transport Corporation (WBSTC) to pay about Rs. 2 lakh compensation to the family of a minor girl who was killed in a road accident with WBSTC bus in 2007.The victims' parents had approached the Court against an order of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, wherein it only awarded them Rs 15,000 in compensation. They argued that strict interpretation of Section 163A was needed and that the negligence of the offending vehicle would be immaterial in such cases however, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the aspect of negligence.Justice Bivas Pattanayak modified the order of compensation and held that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of any other person. The tribunal having gone into the prima facie negligence of the offending vehicle was taken to have committed an error-in-law, and its verdict was overturned.4. "Can't Interdict Election Process: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Entertain Writ Petition Against Rejection Of Nomination In ICAI ElectionsCase Title: Dinesh Kumar Birla v Institute of Cost Accountants of India and Anr Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 159The Calcutta High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by a member of the Institute of Cost Accountants of India (ICAI), Ahmedabad chapter, contesting the...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round Up: June 12 To June 18, 2023

Srinjoy Das

Tags