Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: September 2024

NOMINAL INDEXMarg Limited Vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited And Connected Matters Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 203 Case Title: Kakali Khasnobis Vs Mrs Reeta Paul And Anr. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 204 Bengal Shelter Housing Development Limited Vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 205Ranajit Guha Roy and Anr. vs Sankar Kumar Halder Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 206 Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd vs SRMB Srijan Ltd Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 207Baid Power Services Private Limited vs The Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 208 JATIYATABADI AYINJIBI COUNCIL AND ANR. VS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 209 Tata Communications Limited Vs Rudrapriya Constructions LLP and Anr. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 210 Tapan Kumar Samaddar Vs Sagar Jagdish Daryani And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 211 Manik Bhattacharya v State of West Bengal Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 212 The Secretary Ganaudyog Bazar Unnayan and Service Co-operative Society Limited vs Iris Health Services Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 213 Gita Refractories Pvt Ltd Vs Tuaman Engineering Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 214Court On Its Own Motion Vs. XXXX(Victim Girl) & Anr Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 215Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Kolkata v. Bothra Shipping Services Private Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 216Jayashree Electromech Private Limited v. The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 217Damodar Valley Corporation vs. Reliance Infrastructure Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 218ORDERS/JUDGEMENTSApplicants Seeking Pandemic Relaxation For Limitation Under Section 34 Petition Cannot Simultaneously Claim IBC Moratorium Protection: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Marg Limited Vs Srei Equipment Finance Limited And Connected MattersCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 203The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that if applicant of petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act seeks to benefit from the pandemic relaxation, it cannot simultaneously claim protection under the moratorium of Section 14 of the IBC.The bench held that to avail the pandemic relaxation, the applicant need to show that the pandemic initially prevented it from filing the application on time.The Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation directed the extension of period of limitation in all proceedings before Courts/Tribunals in light of COVID pandemic, including the Supreme Court from 15.3.2020 till further orders, and ultimately, by order dated 10.1.2022 held that the period from 15.3.2020 till 28.2.2022 shall stand excluded in computing the period of limitation.No Prior Request Under Section 21 Needed For Section 11 Arbitration Applications: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Kakali Khasnobis Vs Mrs Reeta Paul And Anr.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 204The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not require a prior request for reference to arbitration under Section 21.The bench held that invalidity of an arbitral proceeding due to the absence of prior notice under Section 21 and a unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is distinct from a situation under Section 11(5), where prior notice is necessary only for the appointment of an arbitrator, not for the initiation of the proceeding itself.Interim Measures Under Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Justified If Applicant's Rights Are Not Protected From Third Parties: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Bengal Shelter Housing Development Limited Vs The Kolkata Municipal CorporationCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 205The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that granting interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is justified if the Applicant's rights are not protected from third parties, as this could render the arbitral reference irretrievably infructuous.Allegations Of Fraudulent Signatures On Arbitration Agreements Must Be Decided By Arbitrator, Not Court Under Section 11: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Ranajit Guha Roy and Anr. vs Sankar Kumar HalderCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 206The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that allegations of a party's signature on an arbitration agreement being obtained through fraud or misrepresentation are matters that can be decided by the arbitrator and can't be resolved by the court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.The bench further observed that the arbitral tribunal, similar to a civil court, has the authority to appoint experts when complex issues, such as those involving fraud or misrepresentation, require expert opinion.The Court Can't Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Re-interpret Contracts While Examining Patent...

Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: September 2024

Srinjoy Das