Calcutta High Court Weekly Roundup: March 28 To April 3, 2022

Nominal Index Anubrata Mondal v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 94Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Optimal Power Synergy Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 95In Re : Guddu Mondal @ Guddu Ali Mondal & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 96Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha v. Md. Abdul Gani Ansari and others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 97Abu Fazel Fakir & Ors v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 98Md. Abdul Gani Ansari v. State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 99Rajesh K.V. @ Rajesh Kaleerakath Venugopal v. Visva-Bharati & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 100Sabitri Bhunya v. The State of West Bengal and Others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 101Central Bureau of Investigation v. Biman Kumar Saha & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 102Dr. Santi Prasad Sinha v. Laxmi Tunga & ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 103Irina Mullick v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 104Judgements/ Orders 1. Calcutta High Court Upholds Single Judge Order Refusing Protection From Arrest To TMC Leader Anubrata Mondal In Cattle Smuggling CaseCase Title: Anubrata Mondal v. Union of India & OrsCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 94The Calcutta High Court upheld a Single Bench order refusing to grant protection from arrest to Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Anubrata Mondal in the ongoing cattle smuggling case, probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed that the order of the Single Bench does not suffer form any error. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the plea of the appellant that he is suffering from various medical ailments due to which he is being unable to appear before the CBI for the purpose of investigation by observing that sufficient material has been placed on record to show that Mondal has been travelling to different places and had even come down to Kolkata, near the place where he was asked to appear for questioning by the CBI. "..this Court also finds substance in the arguments of learned Counsel for respondents that the plea of the appellant that he is suffering from various ailments due to which he is unable to appear for the purpose of investigation, is unsustainable as material has been placed on record to show that the appellant is travelling to different places and had even come to Kolkata, near the place where he is required to appear in pursuant to notice. Appellant is seeking the interim protection to the effect that no coercive steps should be taken against him but there is no material on record showing that any such steps are intended by the respondent", the Court observed.2. Scope Of Discretion To Stay Award U/S 19 MSME Act Wider Than U/S 36(3) Arbitration Act: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Optimal Power Synergy LtdCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 95The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that the discretion conferred upon a Court to stay an award or a decree under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) is broader in scope compared to Section 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) where the discretion is limited to granting stay of an award subject to appropriate conditions. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya noted that the rights of an award holder are enhanced under Section 19 of the MSME Act compared to Section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act with the object to not hasten the death of the enterprise under the weight of financial pressures aggravated by initiation of proceedings for realization of its dues from supply of materials to a buyer. "The object is to ensure that the small or medium scale enterprise survives; the object is not to hasten the death of the enterprise under the weight of financial pressures aggravated by initiation of proceedings for realization of its dues from supply of materials to a buyer. Section 19 of the MSME Act matches the object of the Act and strengthens its core by broadening the contours for stay of an award / decree compared to section 36(3) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the discretion is limited to granting stay of an award subject to appropriate conditions. There is no mandate to allow withdrawal of the amount deposited by the Award-holder", the Court observed.3. Calcutta High Court To Consider Bail For Convicts Languishing In Jail For 14 Yrs Amid Pendency Of Their AppealsCase Title: In Re : Guddu Mondal @ Guddu Ali Mondal & AnrCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 96The Calcutta High Court directed the Registrar (IT) of the High Court to prepare a list of appeals where the appellants are in jail for 14 years or more and list those matters before the Court for consideration of bail within 2 weeks. The direction was issued while suspending the sentence and granting bail to two accused persons who were found to have suffered inordinate incarceration for about 20 years. A Bench comprising Justice Bivas Pattanayak and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "A large number of appeals are pending in...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Roundup: March 28 To April 3, 2022

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags