Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 14 To February 20, 2022

Nominal Index Satya Narayan Banik & Ors v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 40Abu Sohel v. The State West Bengal and others 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 41Nivedita Basu v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 42Sabita Roy v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 43Ramaprasad Sarkar v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 44Rajib Chakraborty and Ors v. The State of West Bengal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 45Manick Sardar v. State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 46Manav Investment and Trading Co. Ltd v. DBS Bank India Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 47West Bengal School Service Commission v. Sandeep Prasad and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 48Round-Up1. 'Public At Large Cannot Be Put To The Whim & Fancy Of Recalcitrant Directors': Calcutta HC Upholds Disqualification Of Directors U/S 164(2) Of Companies ActCase Title: Satya Narayan Banik & Ors v. Union of India & OrsCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 40The Calcutta High Court observed that the provisions for disqualification of directors due to non-filing of balance sheets and annual returns as envisaged under Section 164(2) and Section 167(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 is aimed at ensuring probity and the highest standard of governance in both private and public companies. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha was adjudicating upon a case wherein the petitioners had been disqualified as directors of a company one M/s. Hahnemann International Pvt. Ltd pursuant to Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 for not filing balance sheets and annual returns for a continuous period of three years from the year 2014-15. Opining that such a conduct of the petitioners amounts to deliberate and wilful negligence, the Court underscored, "This Court is of the view that the object and purposes of Section 164 and 167, as amended is to ensure probity and the highest standard of governance in Companies both public and private. A failure to file balance sheet and the annual returns for three consecutive years amounts to deliberate and wilful negligence. The public at large dealing with such companies cannot be put to the uncertainty, whim and fancy of recalcitrant directors. After all the requirements and compliances mandated under the Companies Act, are not only for the benefit of the shareholders of a particular company but also for the public at large, which rely upon such compliances, in assessing the conduct of and in deciding their relations with such companies." The Court held further, "The object and purpose of Section 164(2) and 167(1) is indeed laudable. It is aimed at ensuring good governance and maintenance of high standards of probity and protection of the interest of Shareholders. Transparency in the activities of Companies is very vital for ensuring an enduring business atmosphere in an economy."2. 'Take Recourse To CrPC': Calcutta High Court Dismisses Writ Petition U/A 226 Seeking Directions For Registration Of FIRCase Title: Abu Sohel v. The State West Bengal and othersCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 41Opining on the established principle of availability of alternate remedy, the Calcutta High Court observed that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be filed for adjudicating upon a grievance pertaining to the non-registration of FIR by police authorities on the basis of a complaint made. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj observed while dismissing a PIL, "The grievance is in respect of non-registration of FIR on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner therefore it is a grievance of personal nature, which cannot be agitated in a PIL. That apart, the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a proper remedy seeking direction to register an FIR or to carry out the investigation." The Court further underscored that if the petitioner has any grievance in respect of non- registration of the FIR or improper investigation, then the proper remedy available to him is to take recourse to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).3. 'Remote Chances Of Child Surviving Or Leading A Normal Life': Calcutta HC Allows Medical Termination Of Approx 35 Weeks Old FoetusCase Title: Nivedita Basu v. State of West BengalCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 42In a significant development, the Calcutta High Court allowed termination of 34 weeks 6 days old foetus of a woman after taking into consideration that there are remote chances of the child surviving or leading a normal life. The Court also underscored that there are risks to the health of both the mother and the child if medical termination of the pregnancy is not permitted. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha was adjudicating upon a plea moved by the petitioner seeking medical termination of the pregnancy on the ground that a large number of medical complications have been detected by three medical practitioners which are affecting the health of the petitioner as well as the foetus. "The medical report it is clear and explicit, that there are remote chances of the ...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 14 To February 20, 2022

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags