Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 17 To July 23, 2023

NOMINAL INDEXDipu Bar and Ors. Vs Union Of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 186Smt. Shanta Paul v The State Of West Bengal And Others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 187Dhirarastra Dutta Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 188Srei Equipment Finance Limited v. Seirra Infraventure Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 189State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Asit Das & Ors. & connected appeals 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 190Jaya Industries v Mother Dairy Calcutta & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 1911. Calcutta High Court Directs South 24 Parganas DM To Enquire Into Alleged Misallocation Of Funds Under PM Awas YojanaCase Title: Dipu Bar and Ors. Vs Union Of India and Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 186The Calcutta High Court recently directed the District Magistrate of South 24 Parganas district to inquire into alleged discrepancies in allocation of public funds under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana.While disposing of a petition alleging “large scale illegalities” in the Yojana, a Division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya ordered:“...without going into to the allegations, the District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas district, to is directed to consider the representation and investigate the matter, call for the necessary records, issue notices to all those concerned, and after a thorough enquiry, to take all action in accordance to law. In case public money has been found to be siphoned off, the DM is directed to take immediate remedial action and criminal actions against those who have siphoned off public funds. The above direction be complied with, within a period of 6 weeks.”2. S.11 CPC | Second Writ Petition On Identical Grounds Not Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Upholds Appointment Of Kazi Nazrul University RegistrarCase Title: Smt. Shanta Paul v The State Of West Bengal And OthersCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 187The Calcutta High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking to nullify the appointment of the Registrar of Kazi Nazrul University, West Bengal, on the grounds that such an appointment was made on the basis of an erroneous advertisement, which did not conform to the UGC Regulations, 2018 or the All India Council for Technical Education (“AICTE”) Regulations, 2010.A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta noted that while there was no inconsistency between the UGC/AICTE Regulations and the impugned notification, identical reliefs had earlier been sought for in another writ petition, which had already been dismissed on merits.3. Calcutta High Court Restrains Man Registered With 'Alternate Medical Council' From Using Prefix ‘Doctor’, Orders ProbeCase Title: Dhirarastra Dutta Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 188The Calcutta High Court recently restrained an individual registered with the “Alternate Medical Council, Kolkata” from using the prefix ‘Doctor’ and directed the West Bengal Medical Council to investigate into issues concerning illegal and unauthorised handing out certificates of ‘registered medical practitioners’.In holding that no individual could be certified as a ‘registered medical practitioner’ outside the rules as prescribed by the Indian Medical Council, a division-bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya held: “The petitioner has flagged an important issue which directly impacts the general public…the allegation is against the 8th respondent who portrays himself as a doctor and uses the prefix “Dr” before his name, and is carrying out medical practise. In terms of earlier decisions of this Court, a person who does not possess the requisite qualification in terms of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and whose name does not appear in the register of medical practitioner as contemplated in the aforesaid act, is not entitled to use the prefix doctor, or ‘Dr.’ Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess any medical degree from any recognised medical institution, but would refer to a certificate issued by the Alternate Medical Council, stating that he is registered as per the bye-laws of Bowbazar Society for Alternate Medicine as a registered medical practitioner in an [alternate] system of medicine. The institute of alternate medical sciences cannot award a degree or certificate recognising anyone as an RMP. Therefore, action to be taken against the [aforesaid] institute… The certificate clearly shows that it is a bogus institution, and on the basis of this certificate, the respondent cannot practise medicine in any form.”4. Party’s Right To Choose Arbitrator Cannot Be Revived Once It Is Surrendered To Court U/S 11(6) Arbitration Act: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Srei Equipment Finance Limited v. Seirra Infraventure Private LimitedCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 189The Calcutta High Court has recently held that when a party forfeits its right to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration act”), ...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 17 To July 23, 2023

Srinjoy Das

Tags