Subhra Mukherjee vs M/S. Bengal Media Pvt. Ltd-10/01/2014[CHC]

Although, it was open for the Court to exercise its power under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of absence of specic denial to the pleadings of the plaintiff and to take the facts stated in the plaintiff as admitted the Court in its discretion required certain facts to be proved in this proceeding otherwise than by such admission in its anxiety to ensure that merely by absence in finding and/or decision arrived at by this Court may not cause any prejudice to the non- appearing and non-contesting defendants.

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IS ANGRY ON MEDICAL COUNCIL FOR SITTING IDLE ON A COMPLAINT OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

Prabir Kumar Paik. Vs The West Bengal Medical Council & Ors.[CHC]-26/07/2019-The police require an opinion from the from the West Bengal Medical Council, in terms of the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to proceed any further on the criminal case. West Bengal Medical Council received the request from the police on November 16, 2017. Since then, the West Bengal Medical Council is yet to give its opinion as to whether or not, there is any medical negligence involved, for the police to proceed. The West Bengal Medical Council will inform the Director, Medical Education that, he is required to convene the meeting of the concerned panel of Ethical Cases Committee by July 29, 2019 if not earlier. The concerned panel of Ethical Cases Committee is requested to conclude the proceedings and give its opinion to the police as expeditiously as possible, conduct the proceedings day-to-day basis, if required.

Tarakeswar Rewani vs The UCO Bank & Ors [CHC]-26/07/2019

Availability of an alternative remedy does not oust the High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition is settled law. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary. The relief under Article 226 being discretionary, it is for the Court to decide, whether or not to entertain an application, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

Dr. Bimal Kumar Raj & Ors. VS The State of West Bengal and Ors.[CHC]-26/07/2019

Land acquisition-In a democratic polity the larger interest of the populous has to be given weightage. The minuscule minority has to understand and accept the larger and more laudable need for overall development of the district and the economy of the State. Such larger interest is in the overall Socio-Economic development of the State. Employment generation, revenue income, poverty alleviation in an entire district must be given primacy over the small personal and individual shenanigans.

Laxmi Pat Surana Versus Voltas Ltd.[CHC]-5 /7/ 2019

Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act -A Court whilst hearing an application under Section 34, requires to show more judicial restraint than in the process of an Appellate jurisdiction. An arbitration is an alternate dispute resolution where parties voluntarily decide to avoid the protracted and lengthy process of the Court. The vast jurisprudence on this aspect is never ending and multiplying everyday. If a Court is permitted to review the final decision of the arbitral tribunal both on law or on merits outside the permissible limits statutorily prescribed then the entire object of efficacy and efficiency of the Arbitral Tribunal would be rendered nugatory and infructuous.

Smt. Bijoya Laxmi Parui & Ors Vs Dr Rajendranath Parui & Ors[CHC] – 14/6/2019

Second Appeal-370 days Delay Condoned on the ground that the learned advocate who was entrusted to prepare the memorandum of appeal advised that no appeal is required to be filed as the preliminary decree is not challenged before the Court. It is held that the lapses or negligence on the part of the advocate should not stand in the way of rendering substantial service to the litigant.

GOPI NATH SEN AND OTHERS Vs. BAHADURMUL DULICHAND AND OTHERS [CHC]

The principle under which damages will be awarded u/s 73 of the Indian Contract Act will be different from the principle involved in damages which will be awarded in lieu of specific performance. In the case of damages in lieu of specific performance the same does not result directly or consequentially from out of a breach of a contract as is the cask u/s 73 of the Indian Contract Act. There might be circumstances when the plaintiff might be entitled to specific formic but the Court in its discretion might find that in the special facts of the case the plaintiff should not be awarded specific performance of the contract; but if damages would be awarded in lieu or in substitution thereof then that would amount to granting of a suitable relief. In other words the Court must be in a position to consider that the plaintiff was otherwise entitled to claim specific performance. If that condition would not be fulfilled then there could be no question of the court's exercising that power of granting relief by way of damages in lieu thereof. The expression "in lieu of specific performance" means and signifies that the relief by way of damages is granted in place of specific performance or in substitution thereof so that adequate relief might be awarded to the plaintiff who was otherwise entitled to such specific performance. Once the plaintiff would abandon his case of specific performance then that would be an end of the matter so far as the relief by way of damages in lieu of specific performance was concerned. As observed herein above, he must not only be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract up to the date of the filing of the suit but also during the continuance thereof so that the Court would be in a position to consider the case of granting relief by way of damages in lieu of specific performance even at the time of the passing of the decree.

Church Of North India vs Rt. Reverend Ashoke Biswas [CHC]

Whether the Bishop's service is a 'personal service' at all and as to whether the ingredient of volition is at all a relevant factor after the 2018 Amendment, demands that the plaint should not be rejected at the outset, thereby precluding the plaintiff/opposite party from canvassing the dispute raised. Several allegations made in the plaint, on a plain and meaningful reading, disclose sufficient cause of action to institute the action. There is no bar of law as well, ex facie evident from the plaint, to justify the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Calcutta High Court held: Illegal intrusion of police into Howrah Court premises is violation of Constitution and Laws

The need for a building for a court is fundamental to its existence. Judicial institutions
are the institutions of the national life contemporaneous with the fact that they are the seeds of dispensation of the Judicial Authority under the Constitution and the Laws. Such authority of the Court being inseparable element of the sovereign, unauthorised intrusion into its premises and the activities would stand to breach the Constitution and the Laws. The executive agency of a State, viz., the Government, has the constitutional duty to provide infrastructure for the Courts and also to protect those institutions and premises dedicated for activities in connection with the Courts.