Important Judgments of Calcutta High Court (2024) - Legal Bites Year Update

Legal Bites brings you a roundup of Important decisions of the Calcutta High Court (2024), which played a significant role. It will help the readers to remember all legal and current updates of 2024 pertaining to the Calcutta High Court in the most efficient and easy way.

Important Judgments of Calcutta High Court (2024) - Legal Bites Year Update

1) Legal Validation of Metro Railway Land Acquisition: Tenants’ Rights Examined

In the case of Jagannath Prasad Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2024), the petitioners, tenants in a portion of premises at National Library Avenue, Kolkata, challenged the acquisition of 532.634 sq. mtr. of land by Metro Railway under the Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978. The acquisition was prompted by negotiations with the Consulate General of Nepal (CGN), whose adjacent land was essential for the Metro Railway track alignment but could not be acquired directly due to diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention Act, 1972.

The petitioners argued the acquisition violated their tenancy rights and was for a private treaty rather than a public purpose. The court, however, upheld the acquisition as aligned with public purpose, noting the petitioners were entitled to compensation and directing Metro Railway to determine and pay the same within prescribed timelines. The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were ordered to vacate the premises within six weeks.

2) Jurisdiction in Dowry and Cruelty Cases Clarified by the High Court

In the case Ashish Bhattacharya & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (2024) and Amitava Chatterjee & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (2024), the High Court at Calcutta, in a common judgment delivered by Justice Bibhas Ranjan De, dismissed two criminal revision applications challenging an FIR registered as Burdwan Women Police Station Case No. 219/16 under Sections 498A, 323, 327, 504, 507, and 354B of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioners sought quashing for lack of specific allegations and improper jurisdiction, as the alleged incidents occurred in Vishakhapatnam. However, the Court held that the offences, including cruelty under Section 498A IPC, were continuing in nature, allowing the complainant to file the case where she sought shelter after being driven out. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Rupali Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court affirmed that jurisdiction lies where the victim resides under compulsion due to alleged cruelty. Consequently, both applications were dismissed, and all interim orders were vacated.

3) Importance of Compliance with Section 202 CrPC in Criminal Cases

In Dasrathbhai Narsangbhai Chaudhary & Another v. State of West Bengal & Another (2024), the Calcutta High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioners initiated under Sections 420/406/34 of the IPC for alleged non-payment of salary and performance bonuses to the complainant, a former CEO of Safal Life Science (P) Ltd.

The Court found the dispute to be civil rather than criminal, lacking prima facie evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intent by the accused. Additionally, it held that the Trial Court failed to conduct the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC, as the accused resided beyond its territorial jurisdiction. Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that non-payment of dues does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust. It upheld that territorial jurisdiction and procedural compliance are critical in criminal proceedings.

4) Hire-Purchase Dispute Resolved: Registration Mandate Simplified

In Nandalal Verma v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2024), the Calcutta High Court addressed a dispute regarding the registration of a vehicle purchased through an auction after the original owner defaulted on a loan under a hire-purchase agreement. The petitioner, the auction purchaser, sought registration of the car, which was delayed by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), citing non-compliance with Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court observed that compliance with Section 51(5) was not mandatory under the circumstances, as the financier had taken possession of the vehicle and sold it to the petitioner without raising issues regarding the prior registration certificate. It directed the RTA to complete the registration process for the petitioner within eight weeks, setting aside the impugned order as arbitrary and unreasonable.

5) Principles of Bail and Judicial Discretion

In the case of Arabul Islam v. State of West Bengal (2024), the petitioner sought bail in connection with Bijoygunj Bazar Police Station Case No. 23/2024, arising from a suo-motu complaint regarding violent clashes between political groups during a nomination filing for the 2023 Panchayat Elections. The incidents involved physical assaults, property damage, and loss of life, with the petitioner accused of orchestrating the violence. Despite the State's opposition citing the petitioner's criminal history and the severity of the charges, the Court granted bail, emphasizing the principle of presumption of innocence, lack of evidence of interference with the judicial process, and extended pre-trial custody. The Court imposed stringent conditions to ensure the petitioner’s compliance and prevent tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

6) Court Directs Review of GSTR-9 in Tax Assessment Appeal

In Ankit Kumar Agarwal v. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Taltala Charge & Ors. (2024), the Calcutta High Court set aside the adjudication order dated 15th December 2023 and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The appellant contended that errors in the GSTR-3B return for the financial year 2017-18 were unintentional and revenue-neutral, later rectified in the GSTR-9 annual return filed within the extended deadline due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court emphasized the need to consider GSTR-9 and ensure fair assessment while allowing the appellant an opportunity for a personal hearing. The Court clarified that the order should not be treated as a precedent and directed fresh adjudication on merits and following the law.

7) No Evidence of Bias: Court Validates Institute's Promotion Policy

In the case of Dr Tapas Kumar Mandal v. Union of India & Ors (2024), the petitioner sought a directive for his promotion from Associate Professor (Grade E) to Professor (Grade F) at the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, along with consequential benefits. Despite being recommended for promotion in 2008, disciplinary proceedings delayed the decision, and the petitioner retired in 2010. Following the conclusion of legal proceedings in 2017, disciplinary charges were dropped, and pending dues were paid, but promotion was denied citing poor academic performance and lack of significant contributions.

The Court ruled that promotion is merit-based and requires approval from the Governing Council, which found the petitioner unsuitable due to inadequate achievements. Furthermore, promotion requires the candidate's physical presence in the institute, which was not possible post-retirement. Finding no evidence of bias or arbitrariness, the Court upheld the decision of the employer and dismissed the writ petition.

8) Court Upholds ED’s Actions Under PMLA

In M/s. Arissan Energy Limited v. Enforcement Directorate & Ors. (2024), the petitioner challenged the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) freezing orders under Section 17(1-A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), which froze assets including bank accounts, DMAT holdings, and mutual funds, alleging them to be proceeds of crime. The petitioner argued that it was not named in the predicate FIR, had no transactions with the accused, and was arbitrarily linked to the investigation. The ED countered, presenting a money trail linking the petitioner to funds diverted from M/s Corporate Power Limited via layered transactions.

The court held that the ED's actions were justified under PMLA, as the financial trail substantiated the link, and the freezing orders were valid for investigative purposes. The petition was dismissed, with the court emphasizing the petitioner's remedy before the adjudicating authority under PMLA.