Calcutta High Court Monthy Digest: April 2025

NOMINAL INDEXM/S. Sauryajyoti Renewables Pvt.Ltd. Vs VSL Re Power Private Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 67SRI SWAPAN PAUL VS M/S. PAUL CONSTRUCTION Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 68DEEPAK BHARGAVA & ORS. VS. JAGRATI TRADE SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ORS. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 69M/S GREENBILT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS M/S A B DINESH CONCRETE PRIVATE LIMITED Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 70SMT. NAZREEN BANU AND ANOTHER v THE ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 71Anjani Putra Sena Versus State of West Bengal & Ors Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 72Balasore Alloys Limited vs. Flynt Mining LLP Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 73Abdul Manim Mollah v/s. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 74UMC TECHNOLOGIES P LTD VS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, (RECRUITMENT) Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 75Smt. ParulbalaMondal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 76Mr. Arnab Goswami & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 77M/s. Braithwaite & Co. Limited v. Second Industrial Tribunal & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 78Central Bureau of Investigation v/s. Rajnikant Ojha Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 79TATA CAPITAL LIMITED VS KRISHNA KANT TIWARI Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 80SATYA NARAYAN SHAW VERSUS SOURAV GHOSH Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 81Ashok Kumar Bhuinya Proprietor Of A.K. Enterprise Vs State Of West Bengal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 82Sunil Kumar Samanta Vs. Smt. Sikha Mondal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 83Dabur India Limited Vs. Union of India and others. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 84MANIK FAKIR @ MANIK MONDAL VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 85Bimbadhar Mohakud & Anr. Vs. Bina Shah Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 86Jagat Singh Manot Versus The Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation And Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 87Gallant Equipment Pvt Ltd Vs Rashmi Metaliks Ltd Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 88M/S Doon's Caterers Vs M/S Indian Railway Catering And Tourism Corporation Limited Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 89Sabita Sen v. State of West Bengal & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 90Calcutta Mint Workers Union & Ors. v. National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata & Ors. itation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 91Anup Kumar Singh Vs Union of India & others. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 92M/S Krishna Construction Vs The Chief General Manager Metro Railway And Ors Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 93Zomangaih @ Zohmangaiha -Vs.- State of West Bengal Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 94Lakhotia Metalizers Private Limited Vs Matashree Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 95Johnson Controls Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd. Vs M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji And Company Pvt Ltd. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 96Smti. Ananta vs. Sri Ramchander and another Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 97ORDERS/JUDGEMENTSComposite Reference Of Disputes From Distinct Purchase Orders To Arbitration Is Valid When Parties' Conduct Indicates Single Transaction: Calcutta HCCase Title: M/S. Sauryajyoti Renewables Pvt.Ltd. Vs VSL Re Power Private LimitedCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 67The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that a composite reference of disputes to arbitration arising out of distinct purchase and service orders can be made when the conduct of the parties demonstrates that they were all part of a single business transaction.Court Can Decline To Refer Dispute To Arbitration When Time-Barred Claim Is Evident From Record: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: SRI SWAPAN PAUL VS M/S. PAUL CONSTRUCTION Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 68The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that when a claim is ex facie time-barred and no trial is needed to determine whether it is barred by limitation, the referral court can refuse to refer the matter to arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Directions For Refund Of Consideration With Interest Must Be Considered Based On Conduct Of Parties During Arbitral Proceedings: Calcutta HCCase: DEEPAK BHARGAVA & ORS. VS. JAGRATI TRADE SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ORS. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 69The Calcutta High Court has held that in arbitral proceedings, the direction for refund of the deposited consideration amount with interest has to be considered in the background of the conduct of the parties and their admissions during the proceedings. A division bench of Justices Soumen Sen and Biswaroop Chowdury held: The learned arbitrator rejected the claim for specific performance of the contract as claimed by the present appellants. However, the appellants were directed to refund the sum of Rs.19.90 crores (approximately) which was admittedly received by the appellants from the claimants towards consideration. Interest was also granted on the same...The direction for refund of the amount with interest has to be considered in the background of the conduct of the parties and their...

Calcutta High Court Monthy Digest: April 2025

Srinjoy Das