Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 02 To July 09

NOMINAL INDEXThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Winsome International Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 180State Of West Bengal And Ors. Vs Sirajul Islam Gharami And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 181National Human Rights Commission and Ors v The State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 182Vikas Kumar Bajoria & Anr. Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 1831. MSMED Act | Defaulting Buyer Not Liable To Pay Interest At 3 Times Bank Rate If Supplier Is A Medium Enterprise: Calcutta High CourtCase: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Winsome International Ltd.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 180The Calcutta High Court has ruled that where the supplier is a “medium enterprise” under Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), the rate of interest levied on the arbitral award would be at the bank rate notified by the RBI, and not three-times of such rate, as would have been the case if it were a Micro, or Small enterprise under Section 16 of the MSMED Act.Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was hearing a petition by New India Assurance Co Ltd for a stay of the arbitral award of Rs 24,11,07,449.15 imposed on them by a sole-Arbitrator, on the grounds that the Arbitrator had set the rate of interest at 24.6%, which was three-times the bank rate notified by the RBI, in spite of the respondents being a “medium enterprise.”The court said three kinds of enterprises are defined in three distinct ways under MSMED Act and cannot be viewed as a common set of similar enterprise.2. Calcutta High Court Criticizes Party For Invoking Writ Jurisdiction For Registration Of FIR Against Police Officials Over Alleged ViolenceCase: State Of West Bengal And Ors. Vs Sirajul Islam Gharami And Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 181The Calcutta High Court set aside a single-judge order directing registration of FIR against certain police officials of Baruipur district for alleged violence, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.Questioning the perpetual practise of approaching the High Court under Writ Jurisdiction when there are alternate remedies available under other statutes, a bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivgananam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya orally remarked:“How is your writ maintainable? Why do you not avail remedy (under 156(3) CrPC)? Why short circuit to the writ court? The remedy is under a statute, and you go before a judicial magistrate. Here in writ jurisdiction, on affidavits, how can we give a positive direction for registration of FIR? This has become a routine affair. You have virtually converted the single-bench residuary determination to a Magistrates court. Day in and day out we are seeing…it is a surprise for me…this process in unknown to law. There are umpteen decisions of the SC, rendered by Justice Markandey Katju who says these cases should not be entertained under 226. The magistrate is there to ascertain the facts of a case…he can monitor investigation or issue any positive directions.3. Panchayat Elections: Calcutta High Court Dismisses NHRC's Appeal For Appointment Of “Human Rights Observers”Case: National Human Rights Commission and Ors v The State of West BengalCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 182The Calcutta High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) against a single-judge’s order which set aside appointment of observers and other related directions issued by the Commission “to protect human rights” in the course of the 2023 Panchayat Elections, on the basis of a media reports on wide-spread violence.In dismissing the appeal, a Division Bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya held that, being a body sui juris as pointed out by the single-judge as well as the Advocates for the SEC, the NHRC would have to trace the validity of its actions to its parent statute, viz. the Human Rights Act, 1993 (“Act”), which was not done in this case. “NHRC being a statutory authority constituted under the 1993 Act has to act within the forecorners of the said statute and the regulations framed thereunder subject to the limitations imposed upon it by the statute and the regulations thereunder. It is the duty of the SEC, being a constitutional authority to appoint observers in accordance with the provisions of the 2003 Act. Therefore, the NHRC cannot encroach upon the jurisdiction of the SEC by appointing observers” it was held.4. Calcutta High Court Refuses To Quash Criminal Proceedings Against Parties Accused Of Outraging Modesty Of A Scheduled Caste WomanCase: Vikas Kumar Bajoria & Anr. Vs The State of West Bengal & AnrCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 183The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a revision application to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioners, who were charged under various sections of the IPC and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, for outraging the modesty of a woman belonging to a scheduled caste community.In...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 02 To July 09

Srinjoy Das

Tags