Calcutta High Court Weekly Roundup: March 14 To March 20, 2022

Nominal Index 1. Galaxy Mechanical Engineering Equipments Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 802. Concast Steel and Power Limited v. Sarat Chatterjee and Co 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 813. Sariful Sk. & Anr v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 824. Anindya Sundar Das v. Union of India and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 83Judgments/Orders 1. Allegations Contained in SCN Were Vague: Calcutta High Court Suspends Order Cancelling GST RegistrationCase Title: Galaxy Mechanical Engineering Equipments Private Limited Versus Assistant CommissionerCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 80The Calcutta High Court bench consisting of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has suspended the order cancelling GST registration on the grounds that the allegations contained in the show cause notice were vague. The petitioner/assessee challenged the show-cause notice for cancellation of the GST registration of the petitioner and suspended the registration of the petitioner by the show-cause notice itself. The petitioner challenged the impugned show-cause notice on the ground that the show-cause notice was passed without providing any opportunity for hearing to the petitioner. The court was convinced that the allegation of the petitioner was correct since no reason has been given in the impugned order of cancellation, which was a non-speaking order, which was not sustainable in law. The order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner is set aside and all legal consequences will follow. "So far as part of the impugned show-cause notice for cancellation of registration, where registration of the petitioner has been suspended, this part of the impugned order will remain suspended since the allegation in the impugned show-cause notice is very vague and a one-line allegation without any basis, and for the ends of justice, a person against whom a show-cause notice has been issued should be at least provided in brief the basis of such an allegation so that the person can meet the allegations in the show-cause notice," the court said.2. Order 22 Rule 8 CPC| Delay By Liquidator To Implead Himself In Proceedings A Mere Technical Requirement, Not A Ground For Abatement Of Suit: Calcutta HCCase Title: Concast Steel and Power Limited v. Sarat Chatterjee and CoCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 81The Calcutta High Court recently had the opportunity to expound on the principles pertaining to abatement of a suit under Order 22 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) involving a corporate entity that had been declared as insolvent by the National Company Law Tribunal. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf was adjudicating upon an application seeking dismissal of the instant suit on the grounds of abatement and further direction upon the Special Officer appointed by the Court to restrain him from carrying out the valuation and sale of the concerned goods (10,000 Metric Tons of "Metallurgical Coke" hereinafter referred to as "Met Coke"). Justice Saraf observed that since in the instant case, the liquidator has rendered appearance in meeting held by the Receiver and has made a constant effort to protect the interests of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the liquidator has declined to continue the suit. It was further underscored that a mere delay on the part of the liquidator to implead himself in the instant proceedings cannot be in any manner be presumed to be an abatement of the suit. "..it is crystal clear that the liquidator is fighting tooth and nail with regard to this litigation and a mere delay in making an application for substituting his name in the records of the suit would not in any manner lead to an abatement of the suit. In fact, in my view the liquidator has never stopped acting in the suit but has continued diligently to act in the suit for the protection of the goods in the suit which the plaintiff claims to have title on. The very fact of the presence of the liquidator in the meetings held by the Receiver indicate a constant endeavour to protect the interest of the plaintiff in this case", the Court opined.3. 'Underwent A Traumatic Experience, Was Panic Stricken & Disoriented': Calcutta HC Dismisses Plea Of Delayed Lodging Of FIR, Upholds Conviction Of Gang RapeCase Title: Sariful Sk. & Anr v. The State of West BengalCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 82The Calcutta High Court has recently observed that a delay of a few hours in lodging of the FIR by a victim of gang rape will not vitiate the prosecution case since it is natural for the victim to remain disoriented and confused after having gone through such a traumatic experience thereby justifying such a delay. A Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Bivas Pattanayak was adjudicating upon an appeal against a judgment of the concerned Sessions Court convicting the appellants for the offence of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC. Acknowledging that it is natural for a victim of gang rape to be disoriented and confused thereby...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Roundup: March 14 To March 20, 2022

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags