Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 22nd July To 28th July, 2024

NOMINAL INDEXGaurav Churiwal vs Concrete Developers LLP and Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 170Vishal Jhajharia Versus The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 171Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs M.D. Creations And Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 172Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Jaymony Debnath And Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 173Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs M/S. Sarada Rani Enterprises Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 174Shashanka Maiti & Ors. v/s. The State of West Bengal Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 175Commissioner Of Service Tax versus G.S. Atwal & Co. Engineering Pvt Ltd. Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 176Susmita Pandit Versus State of West Bengal & Another Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 177LLP And Its Individual Partners Can't Raise Same Issue By Separate Appeals U/s 37 Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Gaurav Churiwal vs Concrete Developers LLP and Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 170The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya held that an LLP and its partners cannot file separate appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by citing the principle of 'separate legal entity'. It was held that the principle of res judicata would apply to prevent the individual partners from raising the same issue under Section 37, if the previous appeal filed in the name of the LLP was dismissed.Dept. Failed To Put Assessee On Notice In Respect Of Section 69A Addition, Assessment Order Not Sustainable: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Vishal Jhajharia Versus The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 171The Calcutta High Court has quashed the assessment order on the grounds that the department has failed to put the assessee on notice in respect of addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax. The bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury has observed that the determination made by the respondent-department as reflected in the assessment order stands vitiated by reasons of failure on the part of the department to put the petitioner on notice in respect of addition under Section 69A. Since the assessment order is violative of the principles of natural justice, it is unenforceable in law.'Rohan Builders' Not Binding Precedent, Court Empowered To Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Even If Section 29-A Petition Filed After Termination: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs M.D. Creations And Ors. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 172The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the court is empowered the court is empowered to extend an arbitrator's mandate even if a petition under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is filed after the termination of the mandate. Justice Bhattacharyya clarified that the absence of negative expressions in Section 29-A, which are present in other statutes to enforce strict timelines, indicates legislative intent to allow judicial discretion in extending mandates.Dismissal Of First Execution Application On Default Ground Does Not Bar Fresh Petition: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs Jaymony Debnath And Ors.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 173The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held mere dismissal of the first execution application on the ground of default does not prevent the award-holder/decree-holder from filing a fresh execution petition. The High Court held that the provisions of Rules 105 and 106 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not preclude the award-holder/decree-holder from filing a fresh execution case on the same cause of action after a dismissal for default. Unlike Order 9, there is no specific bar in Order 21 regarding execution cases. The bench noted that even Rule 4 of Order 9 allows for a fresh suit on the same cause of action if the previous suit was dismissed for default without the parties' presence.Arbitrator's Reliance On Unverified Evidence Violates Fundamental Policy Of India: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs M/S. Sarada Rani Enterprises Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 174The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that evidence which does not qualify as pleadings supported by due verification or affidavit cannot be equated with proof of a claim. It held that the arbitrator's reliance on such evidence was contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law. The bench further held that the arbitrator was not in a situation where an exact figure cannot be determined, and which would require a reasonable guesswork by the tribunal. Rather, it was a case where the tribunal arbitrarily granted an amount to the claimant without any material basis.Trial Court Should Not Issue Warrant Of Arrest Mechanically, Without Application Of Mind: Calcutta High CourtCase: Shashanka Maiti & Ors. v/s. The State of West ...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 22nd July To 28th July, 2024

Srinjoy Das