Calcutta High Court Weekly Round Up: April 25 To May 1, 2022

Nominal Index 1. Bengal State Table Tennis Association & Ors. v Malda District Table Tennis Association & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 1412. Soumendu Adhikari v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 1423. In the matter of: Parimal Barui 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 1434. Madhu Singh v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 1445. Indranil Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 1446. Subrata Kumar Samanta v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 1457. Bidyut Kumar Mondal v. Pankaj Sarkar & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 1468. Rupa Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 1479. Snigdha Datta (Basu) v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 14810. In the matter of Kapil Raj 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 14911. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors. v. Rajesh Kumar Sinha & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 15012. Nur Afsar Mandal v. Visva Bharati and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 15113. Ideal Unique Realtors Private Limited & Anr. versus Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 152Orders/Judgments 1. Calcutta High Court Imposes ₹25K Cost On Party For Seeking Repeated AdjournmentsCase Title: Bengal State Table Tennis Association & Ors. v Malda District Table Tennis Association & OrsCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 141The Calcutta High Court on Friday imposed costs to the tune of Rs 25,000 on a party for seeking repeated adjournments. A Bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Kesang Doma Bhutia noted that the appellants had sought several adjournments. But despite the accommodating orders the Court had passed, they again sought an adjournment for the fourth time. "This is the fourth occasion when adjournment has been sought for by the appellants. We have passed several orders from 18.04.2022 to accommodate the appellants. At the time of third call today, adjournment is again sought for on behalf of the appellants. Since today is the last date of the Circuit bench, we are unable to keep the matter after recess owing to our respective Single Bench lists," the Court observed. Accordingly, the Bench imposed costs and ordered the appellants to pay Rs 25,000 to the District Legal Services Authorities, Jalpaiguri within a period of seven days.2. Contai Municipality Polls: Calcutta HC Orders CFSL To Conduct Forensic Audit Of CCTV Cameras, Report To Be Submitted Within 6 WeeksCase Title: Soumendu Adhikari v. State of West BengalCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 142The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday directed Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), New Delhi to conduct a forensic audit of the CCTV cameras that were used during the recently concluded Contai Municipality elections. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj while reading out the operative portion of the order on Tuesday observed that notwithstanding the constitutional bar under Article 243-ZG (b) of the Constitution of India, such a direction is required in the 'larger public interest' and to uphold democratic principles."..we are of the opinion that not only to ascertain the compliance of earlier orders of this Court but in the larger public interest and to uphold democratic principles, it is necessary to get forensic audit of CCTV footage of Contai Municipal Election done", the Court underscored. Accordingly, the Court directed the State Election Commission to send the CCTV footage of Contai Municipal Election for forensic audit to CFSL, Delhi within 10 daysAlso Read: Contai Municipality Polls| Calcutta HC Raps SEC For Its Changed Stance Over Forensic Audit Of CCTV Cameras By CFSL3. 'Requires Attention Of Superiors': Calcutta HC Raps Investigating Officer For Allegedly Demanding Money, Refusing To Examine Petitioner Without Identification ProofCase Title: In the matter of: Parimal BaruiCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 143The Calcutta High Court came down heavily on an Investigating Officer while adjudicating upon an anticipatory bail application in connection with a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). A Bench comprising # expressed strong reservations over the conduct of the concerned Investigation Officer after being apprised that the officer had refused to examine the petitioner in response to a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in the absence of the petitioner's identification proof. "An investigation is in progress. It is intriguing that the Investigating Officer requires the identification proof of the person appearing before him in response to a notice under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He is not aware of the person who is required to be interviewed thereunder in absence of his identification proof", the Court underscored. Further opining that the conduct of the Investigating Officer requires the attention of his superiors, the Court remarked, "The conduct of the Investigating Officer, requires attention of his superiors". 4. 'Misleading The Court': Calcutta HC Directs DGP To Initiate Departmental...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round Up: April 25 To May 1, 2022

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags