Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label Calcutta High Court

When an Accused is acquitted on the basis of a Compromise, it cannot be said that the Accused was Honourably Acquitted [CASE LAW]

When an accused is acquitted on the basis of a compromise, it cannot be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.

Collectorʹs Power to Stamp Instruments Impounded [JUDGMENT]

The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 38 and 40 - Collectorʹs power to stamp instruments impounded -  the Collector’s decision in such regard being final, upon a reference under Section 38(2) of the 1899 Act.

Right of Practice is Different from the Right of Appearance in a Particular Case [CASE LAW]

The Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 32 - The right of practice is different from the right of appearance in a particular case. The right of practice is a right of advocates to practice the profession of law before all courts, tribunals, authorities, etc, but the right of appearance to appear in a particular case on the permission granted by the court under Section 32 of the Act is an exception to the right of practice by advocates.

Important Calcutta High Court Judgments April 2019

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 24 and Order 32 Rule 15 - Application for Transfer of a Matrimonial Suit - Suits by or against minors and persons of unsound mind -  The Court conducting trial in connection of matrimonial suit should be the competent authority to ascertain the extent of mental sufferings of the petitioner/wife in connection with a proceeding praying for divorce, otherwise there will be conflicting decisions or the findings of the proceeding may affect the ultimate decision of pending matrimonial suit. In connection with a prayer for proposed transfer simplicitor under Section 24 CPC, there lies least scope for a superior Court to conduct an enquiry itself as contemplated in Rule 15 of Order 32 CPC which is the prerequisite to ascertain the level of mental injury causing thereby to develop the mental infirmity. Subhasis Dasgupta, J . Susmita Pramanik v. Bhaktipada Pramanik , C.O. No. 3605 of 2017 03-04-2019

Amendment of Pleadings - Whether ‘Commencement of Trial’ as envisaged in the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC would mean the date of First Hearing [CASE LAW]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of Pleadings - the expression “commencement of trial” in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would imply the date when the court first applies its mind after the affidavit of evidence is filed and when the first witness proves his affidavit of evidence or such witness seeks to prove a document for it to be tendered in evidence or the cross-examination of such witness begins, whichever is earlier.

Jurisdiction of Criminal Court is not Permissible to be Invoked for Enforcement of Breach of Promise of an Agreement [CASE LAW]

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420 and 120B - To constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust it is essential that the prosecution has to show first of all that the accused was entrusted with some property or with any dominion or power over it.

Whether Court can Reject Prayer for Adjournment [CASE LAW]

Adjournment - An adjudicating authority is entitled to reject a prayer for adjournment -  Merely, because the adjudicating authority rejected a prayer for adjournment ipso facto does not mean that, the proceeding stands vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice.

Whether Violation of an Injunction Order attracts Contempt of Court [CASE LAW]

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2 (b) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rule 2A - Where an injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code is granted by a subordinate Court, High Court cannot punish the contemnor. 

Scope of Permitting Parties to Adduce Secondary Evidence after Examining Probative Value of Document in Question [CASE LAW]

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - the scope of permitting parties to adduce secondary evidence after examining the probative value of the document in question.

Section 498A IPC - No Ground for Framing the Charge [CASE LAW]

Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 498A / 323 / 114 - Criminal P.C. 1973 - Ss. 227 & 228 - If there is no ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, the charge must be considered to be groundless, which is the same thing as saying that there is no ground for framing the charge.

Battling Corruption is the Crying Need of the Day and the same should be dealt with an Iron Hand [CASE LAW]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -  Battling corruption is the crying need of the day and the same should be dealt with an iron hand. 

Latest & Important Calcutta High Court Judgments January 2019

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 - Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 - Scope and extent of the power of the High Court and the Supreme Court  - Power of the Court is confined only to examine the existence of the arbitration agreement - The object of the amendment is to ensure minimum intervention of the court in arbitration proceedings.  TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. v. Lindsay International Private Limited , Soumen Sen, J.  A.P. No. 969 of 2017 22-01-2019

Whether Councillors can Elect a Non-member as Mayor / Chairman / President [CASE LAW]

Constitution of India - Art. 243R - Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (Kolkata)  - S. 6 - permitted the elected Councillors of the Corporation to appoint any individual as the Mayor subject to such individual getting elected within a period of six months from the date of his initial appointment - Whether Valid ?

3 Important Calcutta High Court Judgments Pronounced Today [Wednesday, October 3, 2018]

1. Shambhu Nath & Brothers v. Imran Khan Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 62 - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 17, 134 - Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - On comparison of the said two marks and having regard to the field of activity and the nature of the products, there cannot be any doubt that the mark "SNJ TOOFAN" is deceptively similar to the mark "TOOFAN" already registered in favour of the petitioners. In fact, the marks of the petitioners are infringed by user of the said infringing marks which clearly shows the dishonest intention of the said respondent to ride on the reputation of the petitioners. That the respondent is seeking to pass off his goods as that of the petitioners is prima facie established. The balance of convenience is also in favour of passing an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, there shall be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition.

Whether Lawyers Assistance in the Departmental Proceedings is Permissible [JUDGMENT]

Service Law -  Lawyer’s Assistance  in the Departmental Proceedings  -  Lawyer’s assistance can never be claimed as of right, unless specifically provided in the rules governing the enquiry.

Accused resides outside Jurisdiction - Nature of Enquiry by Magistrate u/s. 202 (1) Cr.P.C. [Case Law]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 202 (1) - Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 -  S. 19 - Amendment  is aimed to prevent innocent persons, who are residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned, from harassment by unscrupulous persons from false complaints - The use of expression “shall”, looking to the intention of the legislature to the context, is mandatory before summons are issued against the accused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.