Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 24 - July 30

NOMINAL INDEXAuroma Coke Limited v Coal India Limited and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 192The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. M/s. BBM Enterprise 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 193Tanushree Hazra Vs State of West Bengal And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 194Shreekant Sharma Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 195Somnath Gupta Vs. State of West Bengal & Orr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 196Shagufta Sulaiman v State of WB and ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 197 Shivani Mishra Vs. The Union of India and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 198Rabin Tudu vs. State of West Bengal & ors and connected applications 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 199Biresh Poddar and another v State of West Bengal and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 2001. Calcutta High Court Criticizes "Indefinite" Ban On Bidder Pending Criminal TrialCase: Auroma Coke Limited v Coal India Limited and othersCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 192The Calcutta High Court has allowed a writ petition for the lifting of a ban imposed on Auroma Coke Ltd (“petitioners”) from taking part in the Non-regulated Sector (“NRS”) Linkage auctions organised by Coal India Limited (“CIL”).The petitioners were blacklisted by CIL in the year 2011 upon a communication by the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) regarding alleged mis-utilisation of coal carried out by the petitioners. The CBI had since filed a chargesheet in the matter in 2012 and an ongoing criminal trial had since ensued before a sessions court in Dhanbad.Upon purposively constructing the “Scheme Document of November 2022”, released by CIL, in order to interpret the sections on blacklisting in NRS Linkage auctions, a single-judge Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held that the tender document itself stipulated a maximum blacklisting period of 5 years, even if there existed an ongoing criminal investigation or order of conviction against the petitioner.2. Court May Permit Award-Holder To Withdraw Security Deposited By Award-Debtor Pending Challenge To Arbitral Award U/S 34: Calcutta High CourtCase: The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. M/s. BBM EnterpriseCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 193The Calcutta High Court has recently allowed an application filed by the State of West Bengal, as an award-holder in AP 808 of 2022, under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) to withdraw a security of Rs 9 crore furnished by BBM Enterprises (“award debtor”) in lieu of the arbitral award, during the pendency of setting aside proceedings on the impugned award, initiated by the award-debtor.In holding that an award-holder required no statutory sanction or a separate application in the stay proceedings for withdrawing the secured amount, a single-bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya directed the State to furnish a bank guarantee of an equivalent amount to the Registrar, Original Side, Calcutta High Court, before withdrawing the amount, and opined that withdrawal of the amount would not prejudice the rights of the award-debtor, during the pendency of the setting-aside proceedings.3. Calcutta High Court Directs Pollution Control Board To Conduct Surprise Inspection On Rice Mills Allegedly Discharging Toxic EffluentsCase: Tanushree Hazra Vs State of West Bengal And Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 194The Calcutta High Court directed the West Bengal Pollution Control Board (“PCB”), to carry out surprise inspections on certain rice-mills in Arambagh allegedly discharging toxic effluents into a kuchha ‘drain’ along the side of a busy National Highway.Upon noting that the PCB had previously ordered the closure of the aforesaid rice mills due to their illegal and polluting actions, a division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya observed:“As long as the order of PCB has not been revoked, altered or modified, the private respondent rice mills are not entitled to carry on their actions It is not clear as to why the PCB has not made any further inspection in the matter. Therefore, there will be a direction to the appropriate authority of the WB PCB to conduct an immediate surprise inspection of all the respondent rice mills. If it is found that despite the order of closure, or in non-compliance with any directions issued by PCB, the mills are operating, then immediate action must be taken against them. If they are complying with direction by establishing effluent treatment plant among other conditions, then only will the PCB be entitled to permit them to carry on business. The surprise inspection shall be carried out not later than ten days from the communication of the server copy of this order.”4. Calcutta High Court Refuses To Quash POCSO FIR Against ‘Priest’ Grand-Uncle, Says No Time Limit Can Be Prescribed For Filing Such ComplaintsCase: Shreekant Sharma Vs. The State of West Bengal & AnrCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 195The Calcutta High Court has refused to quash the criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (“POCSO Act”) initiated by a minor girl against her grand-uncle, a priest, accusing ...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 24 - July 30

Srinjoy Das

Tags