Calcutta High Court
[CGST ACT] Dept Can't Seize Goods If Quantity Or Weight Of Goods Is Found Correct On Physical Verification: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court stated that GST department cannot seize the goods if the quantity or weight of the goods is found correct on physical verification. The Division Bench of Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that the quantity or the weight of the goods, which were carried in the vehicle, has been found to be correct by the department on physical verification and there is no discrepancy. The bench further stated that “the inspecting authority...
[Arbitration Act] Pre-Referral Jurisdiction Of Court U/S 11(6) Includes Inquiry On Whether Claims Are Ex-Facie & Hopelessly Time Barred: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that while the scope of adjudication by referral court is limited and entails a mere examination of whether the arbitration agreement exists or not, the referral court is not precluded from examining whether the claim is deadwood or ex facie barred. Background Facts The agreement between the parties was entered into on December 31, 2004 and the work order was issued sometime in 2006. It is contended by the Petitioner...
Gratuity Dues Of Workers Do Not Form Part Of 'Liquidation Estate' Of Corporate Debtor, Must Be Paid In Full: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) has held that gratuity dues are statutorily protected under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and do not form part of the liquidation estate of the Corporate Debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The court held that gratuity payments are outside the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the IBC and must be paid in full, irrespective of the resolution plan. It further observed that Section 14 of the Payment of...
[Arbitration Act] Referral Courts Can't Indulge In Enquiry Into Whether Claims Are Time-Barred: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that in an application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 996, it would not be proper for the referral court to indulge in an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question of whether the claims raised by the petitioner were time-barred or not. “Courts, at the referral stage, can interfere only when it is manifest that the claims are expressly time barred and dead or when there are no subsisting...
Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Directing KMDA To Refund Amount Deposited By South City Projects Under MoU
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Madhuresh Prasad has held that findings of the Arbitrator based material cannot be interfered with within the limited scope of proceedings under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Brief Facts: The present appeal has been filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act against an order passed by the court under section 34 of the Arbitraton Act by which the arbitral award in favor of...
Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Even If No Satisfaction Is Recorded By Court On Bypassing Pre-Institution Mediation U/S 12A Of Commercial Courts Act: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury has held that admission of the plaint by the Commercial Court without recording satisfaction as to whether the requirement of pre-institution mediation under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“Commercial Courts Act”) can be bypassed and a case for urgent relief is established, cannot be said to be fatal and the plaint cannot be rejected on this ground alone. Brief Facts: The present revisional application has...
AO Duty Bound To Dispose Of Assessee's Written Objections To Proposed Re-Assessment By Passing Speaking Order: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court recently upheld an ITAT order deleting the addition of over ₹4 crore made to the income of an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 in reassessment action.A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Bivas Pattanayak held that the Assessing Officer had erred in not disposing of the written objection submitted by the assessee against the reopening of the assessment.It observed, “The duty cast upon the assessing officer is to decide the written objections...
Govt Authority Must Furnish Security Before Getting Stay On Award U/S 36(3) Of A&C Act, No Special Treatment Can Be Given: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that special treatment cannot be given to the government while hearing a petition seeking stay on the enforcement of the award under section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act. Every petitioner including the government will have to furnish security or deposit the awarded amount before a stay on the enforcement of the award can be granted. Brief Facts: The present application has been filed seeking stay on the enforcement of...
[S.12A Commercial Courts Act] Pre-Institution Mediation Is Intended To Encourage Parties To Use Litigation As Last Resort: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury has held that the clear intent of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is to encourage parties to use litigation as a last resort and to resolve commercial disputes amicably, informally, cheaply and quickly under the process of mediation. Additionally, the court modified the interim relief to the effect that upon the appellant making payment of Rs.2 crores and filing an affidavit of assets and...
Calcutta High Court Directs South Eastern Railway To Refund Additional 20% Surcharge Levied On Consignment
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar has held that an impugned judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata whereby the appellant's claim for refund of 20% surcharge was refused is erroneous in law and perverse. Court said that the tribunal overlooked the obvious legal effect of the Circulars and Goods Tariff documents before it, which were the only documents which would have any bearing on the adjudication. Thus the court...
Power To Correct Computation Error U/S 33 Of Arbitration Act Can Be Exercised Suo Moto If No Application Is Filed Within 30 Days: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that power to correct computation error in the award under section 33 of the Arbitration Act can be exercised suo moto by the Arbitral Tribunal when no application is filed to this effect within 30 days.Brief FactsA work order was awarded to the claimant by the respondent under which the claimant undertook to construct a road from Gholpukur to Tekhali Bridge and its maintenance. Dispute arose under the contract and the...
[Seat vs. Venue] Designated “Seat” Of Arbitration Has Exclusive Jurisdiction: Calcutta High Court Reiterates
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury has held that once the “seat” of arbitration is designated in an agreement, it is to be treated as the exclusive jurisdiction for all arbitration proceedings. The Court referred to the 'Shashoua Principle', which propounds that when there is an express designation of a "venue" and no alternative seat is specified, the venue is considered the juridical seat of arbitration.The arbitration clause in the loan...