“The prime concern and endeavour of law should be to secure justice on the basis of truth, which ought to be unearthed through a committed and competent investigating agency.” observes the Court.
Calcutta High Court held that an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by one party lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between both the parties.
Newly elevated Judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Rajesh Bindal, celebrates his 62nd birthday today. Prior to being elevated to the Supreme Court, Justice Bindal was serving as the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court.
It was alleged that the Calcutta High Court had arbitrarily cancelled the appointment of petitioners who were appointed as Assistant Teachers of Government aided primary school in the year 2017-2018.
Justice Aniruddha Bose who celebrates his 64th birthday today, had served the High Courts of Calcutta and Jharkhand as a Judge prior to being elevated to the Supreme Court in 2019.
Calcutta High Court observed that no sum due will be recoverable from any consumer after a period of two years from the date when such sum first became due unless such sum was shown continuously recoverable as arrears of charges of electricity supply.
Justice Prakash Shrivastava retires today after being the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court for one and half years.
The Calcutta High Court quashed the imposition and recovery of penalty by the respondent authorities and directed them to refund the penalty amount and issue discharge certificate in favour of the petitioners.
Calcutta High Court held that all the unilateral appointment of arbitrators is not invalid unless the arbitrator’s relationship falls within the Seventh Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
While quashing the impugned criminal proceeding against the petitioners, the Court held that a defaulter borrower holds the secured asset only in trust or symbolic possession and even if the petitioners have entered the said property, the same cannot be marked out as trespassers in other’s’ property.
Calcutta High Court upheld AAAR’s order and held that Polypropylene Leno Bags made from Plastic Granules cannot be treated as Textile Articles.
While examining the difference between false promise to marry and breach of promise to marry, the Court held that from the facts and circumstances of the case i.e., the extent of being physically involved with her on the false promise to marry in near future. The defacto-complainant being already married, the petitioner cannot be held liable for committing the alleged offences.
Calcutta High Court | While deciding a revision petition, Tirthankar Ghosh*, J. held that no offence under Ss. 417 and 426 of
The Supreme Court observed that if allegations in the petition are vague and are not specific with respect to the alleged offences, it cannot lead to an order for registration of an FIR and investigation on the accusation of commission of the offences alleged.
Justice Dipankar Datta, was born on 09-02-1965 in a Bengali family. He served as a Judge in the Calcutta High Court, and as a Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, then he was sworn in as Supreme Court Judge by Chief Justice Dr D.Y. Chandrachud on 12-12-2022
Calcutta High Court | While dealing with a case regarding violation of S. 20(2) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition
“Moreover, after the Supreme Court Collegium reiterated the proposal on 01 September 2021, it was not open to the Department to repeatedly send back the same proposal which has been reiterated by the Supreme Court Collegium after duly considering the objections of the Government.” said the Collegium.
Dismissing the revision petition filed for quashing of FIR and criminal proceeding against the petitioner/husband, the Court held that prima facie case of a cognizable offence of cruelty can be make out against the petitioner/husband therefore inherit power of High Court under S. 482 CrPC cannot be exercised.
In a high profile case involving senior Congress leader and former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Kamal Nath, challenging the order of transfer of proceedings by Income Tax Department involving several transactions of large scale collection of illegal money, the Court opined that (i) there is no absolute right to be assessed in a particular territory and (ii) the inconvenience of assessee has to be balanced against department's right to carry its functions and scope of judicial review is limited.
Calcutta High Court based its ruling on the well settled principle of law that where oral evidence is convincing, reliable and trustworthy, the motive behind the occurrence loses its relevance.