Calcutta High Court Weekly Round Up: May 9 To May 15, 2022

Nominal Index [Citations 163 To 176] In the matter of Dunlop India Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 163Damodar Valley Corporation versus Reliance Infrastructure Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 164Bhaskar Banerjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 165Indian Jute Mills Association and Anr v. Union of India and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 166Sanghamitra Bhattacharya v. Sudeshna Kar & Ors 2022 Live Law (Cal) 167Aminul Islam @ Amenur Molla v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 168 Suraj Singh v. State of West Bengal & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 169The Court on its own Motion In re: The Brutal Incident of Bogtui Village, Rampurhat, Birbhum 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 170Ali Hossain Sk. @ Ali Hussain Seikh v. Narcotics Control Bureau 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 171Chitta Biswas v. The State of West Bengal & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 172Anita Nigam v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 173Soma Sinha v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 174Sanchita Kundu & Anr. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 175Govardhan Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 176Orders/Judgments 1. Cannot Turn Back On Obligations On Pretext Of Mistake: Calcutta HC Orders Payment Of Compensation For Mistakenly Increasing Intending Bid By 10 TimesCase Title: In the matter of Dunlop India LtdCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 163The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that a person cannot turn back on his obligations on the pretext of an act mistakenly committed especially where the mistake has resulted in certain irreversible consequences or consequences which may be reversed but at substantial cost to the other party to the act. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was adjudicating upon an application filed by an individual carrying on business under the name and style of Texworth International for an injunction restraining the Official Liquidator from treating the last bid submitted by the applicant for Rs. 418.11 crores as the applicant's bid against an e-auction Sale Notice for Lot-1 of the property mentioned in the concerned Notice. The Court further noted that Sections 20, 21 and 22 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872, contemplate situations where both the parties to an agreement have proceeded on a mistaken belief of a fact essential to the agreement and contemplate that a contract is not voidable because it was caused by a mistake as to any law in force. "Although, the present case is not one of contract, the principle which emerges from the statute and case-law is that a person cannot turn back on his obligations on the pretext of an act mistakenly committed. This is particularly true where the mistake has resulted in certain irreversible consequences or consequences which may be reversed but at substantial cost to the other party to the act", the Court underscored further.2. Order Passed By Court Under Section 36 Of A&C Act Is An Interim Order, Can Be Modified On Grounds Of Financial Hardship: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Damodar Valley Corporation versus Reliance Infrastructure LtdCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 164The Calcutta High Court has ruled that financial hardship and financial indebtedness are sufficient grounds for modifying an order passed under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to direct the award debtor to deposit the awarded amount by way of cash security. The Single Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that the security directed to be deposited by a Court under Section 36 of the A&C Act should be real and realisable, and it ought not to be illusory. The Court added that once a Court exercises its jurisdiction under Section 36 of the A&C Act and directs furnishing of security in a particular mode and manner, it always retains jurisdiction in respect of such security. The Court ruled that an order passed by the Court under Section 36 is an interim order and is subject to alteration and modification. The High Court observed that under Section 36 of the A&C Act, the award debtor is obliged to furnish security in order to obtain stay of the arbitral award. The Court added that the purpose of furnishing security was to ensure and facilitate the fulfilment and enjoyment of a right or a potential right vested in the award holder. The Court ruled that each case is to be decided on its merits and the Court is not bound to order security in each and every case. The Court added that there may be cases where an award debtor is entitled to an unconditional stay of the award, for instance where an award is so perverse, irrational and patently illegal that it ought to be stayed unconditionally.3. 'Lawyer Not Criminally Liable For Improper Legal Advice': Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against LawyerCase Title: Bhaskar Banerjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation & AnrCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 165The Calcutta High Court has recently quashed...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round Up: May 9 To May 15, 2022

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags