Calcutta High Court Upholds Quashing Of ₹7.29 Crore Penalty Imposed On Dissolved HUF

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the quashing of penalty proceedings initiated against a dissolved Hindu Joint Family.A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) upheld the ITAT order which had relied on a Supreme Court ruling to declare the penalty action void-ab-initio.The Top Court had in CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited held that notice and/or consequent order issued in the name of a non-existent person renders the entire proceedings and all...

Evaluation Of Alternative Propositions By Arbitrator For Interim Award Does Not Constitute Inherent Contradiction Or Perversity: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar has held that considering alternative propositions by the Arbitrator and proceeding on the premise that the award holder would be entitled to an interim award under either scenario does not amount to an inherent contradiction. Evaluating alternatives is a legitimate judicial exercise and does not tantamount to perversity. Brief Facts: The dispute arises from an agreement dated December 26, 2004,...

Absence Of Express Liberty In Withdrawal Order To File Fresh Execution Petition Does Not Deny Benefit U/S 14 Of Limitation Act: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De has held that withdrawal of an execution petition for enforcement of an arbitral award on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, when such ground is clearly stated in the withdrawal application, does not bar the petitioner from refiling before the appropriate forum, even if the court's order does not expressly grant liberty to refile. Accordingly, the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) cannot be denied. ...

Arbitrator Can Fix Fee In Consultation With Parties Without Recourse To A&C Act; Quantum Can't Be Challenged Under Article 227: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Bihas Ranjan De. has observed that an arbitrator can indeed fix his remuneration, and this can be done in a manner that may not comply with the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provided that such a decision is made in consultation with the parties involved. When parties contractually agree on a fee, the Fourth Schedule will not be applicable. The court held that a party cannot file a revision application under...

Composite Reference To Arbitration Can Be Made For Acceptance Of Offer At Consolidated Price Across Different Locations: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the very acceptance of an offer at a consolidated price for works to be executed at different locations proves that the work orders issued were treated as part of a single transaction by the parties through their conduct therefore under such circumstances a composite reference of all work orders can be made to arbitration. Brief Facts: This application has been filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and ...

No Interim Relief U/S 9 Of A&C Act Without Exceptional Circumstances After Conciliation Fails & Arbitration Starts Under MSME Act: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that once conciliation fails under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act), the Council may either conduct the arbitration itself or refer the matter to an arbitral institution. As per Section 18(3) of the MSME Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) apply to such arbitration proceedings. It further held that unless exceptional circumstances are...

Appointment Of Arbitrator By GM Of Metro Rail In Dispute Between Railways & Contractor Is Barred U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that the appointment of an arbitrator by the General Manager of Metro Railways in a dispute between Metro Railways and the contractor is barred by Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Therefore, the General Manager cannot be permitted to appoint the arbitrator. Brief Facts: M/S Krishna Constructon (Petitioner) was awarded a contract for cleaning and maintenance of sub-stations, ...

Proceedings U/S 37 A Of FEMA Can't Be Continued During Moratorium U/S 33(5) Of IBC: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Jay Sengupta has held that once a liquidation order against the Corporate Debtor is passed, all proceedings including those pending at the time of such order under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) cannot be continued, nor can any new proceedings be initiated, in view of the bar under Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). This is further reinforced by the non obstante clause under Section 238 of the Code,...

Whether IRCTC's Revised Menu Alters Original Contract With Arbitration Clause Is For Arbitrator To Decide, Falls Outside Court's Jurisdiction: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that whether the subsequent revision of the original menu by IRCTC form part of the original contract containing an arbitration clause is a matter to be decided by the Arbitrator. Such an issue falls outside the limited scope of the Court's jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Brief Facts: The present petition has been filed under section 11(6) of the...

Although Injunction Against Invocation Of Guarantee Cannot Be Granted, Court Can Grant Interim Protection If Prima Facie Case Is Established: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar has held that although an injunction against the invocation of a bank guarantee cannot normally be granted, if the petitioner establishes a prima facie case, the court should not hesitate to grant interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Brief Facts: Gallant Equipment Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) and Rashmi Metaliks Ltd (Respondent) entered into a “Goods & Service Order”...

While Disputes U/S 31 Of Specific Relief Act Are Arbitrable, Arbitral Awards Are Not Binding On Third Parties: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth has held that although disputes relating to the cancellation of written instruments under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 are arbitrable, the resulting awards are binding only on the parties involved and not on third parties who were not part of the arbitral proceedings. Brief Facts: The present petition has been filed by Jagat Singh Manot (petitioner) to challenge the letter dated 22.04.2024 issued by Kolkata ...

Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Considered Binding If Mandatory Arbitration Reference Is Missing: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sakar has held that if a clause in an agreement gives the parties discretion to refer the matter to arbitration after disputes have arisen, it cannot be construed as a binding arbitration agreement. Such invocation of the arbitration clause requires fresh consent of the other party before the matter can be referred to arbitration. Brief Facts: The lease deed was executed between Jiten Mondal, the respondent's predecessor (husband), and ...