High Court of Calcutta

30 judgments

Year:

Arib Dallas Private Limited v. M/s Royalway, Calcutta

17 Jul 2019 · M. R. Shah · 2019 INSC 771

The Calcutta High Court held that solatium under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act must be calculated on the total compensation amount including the additional 12% interest, not merely on the market value of the land.

property petition_dismissed Significant solatium land acquisition Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 market value

eb996731b5189548fe689fa74dcbf9607e27924bca72be1851db485444d0efac

17 Jul 2019 · M. R. Shah

The Calcutta High Court held that solatium under the West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 2013, is to be calculated only on the market value and compensation excluding the additional 12% interest, which is payable separately.

property petition_dismissed Significant solatium land acquisition compensation West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 2013

Bengal Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Ajat Nine and Ors.

09 Jul 2019

The court upheld the eviction notice under the Public Premises Act but allowed the petitioner to continue possession subject to payment of monthly compensation and compliance with court orders.

property appeal_allowed Significant Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 lease expiry unauthorized occupation eviction notice

Madhab Sad Birla v. Advenza Investments and Holdings Limited

15 May 2019 · R. Banumathi; R. Subhash Reddy · 2019 INSC 663

The Supreme Court clarified the mandatory preliminary inquiry under CrPC Sections 200 and 202 before proceeding with criminal complaints alleging misappropriation of company records, emphasizing the need for sufficient cause and preventing misuse of criminal law in corporate disputes.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 202 CrPC Preliminary inquiry Criminal breach of trust Misappropriation of company records

Madhab Prasad Birla v. Rose Singh Ladhar & Ors.

09 May 2019 · R. Banumathy; R. Subhash Reddy

The court upheld the quashing of certain criminal complaints due to lack of mandatory investigation and insufficient evidence of criminal misappropriation of company documents, emphasizing procedural safeguards under amended Section 202 CrPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 202 CrPC Mandatory investigation Criminal misappropriation IPC Sections 379, 403, 411, 120-B

Rifaq K v. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Unit

07 May 2019 · Ashok Bhushan; K. M. Joseph · 2019 INSC 639

The Supreme Court clarified that under the NDPS Act, enhanced sentences beyond the minimum prescribed require valid statutory reasons under Section 32B, modifying the appellant's sentence accordingly.

criminal sentence_modified Significant Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 21(c) Section 32B minimum sentence

Rifaq K v. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Unit

07 May 2019 · Ashok Bhushan; K. M. Joseph

The court upheld the conviction under NDPS Act but reduced the sentence to 16 years, holding that enhanced punishment beyond the minimum mandatory requires valid reasons under Section 32B, which were satisfied by the commercial quantity of heroin seized.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 21(c) Section 32B minimum mandatory sentence

Seema Sarkar v. Nibhahee Committee

01 May 2019 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Ajay Rastogi · (2001) 3 KLJ 4987

The court held that only directly elected members of a Prayat Samiti have voting rights in no-confidence motions and special meetings, invalidating the no-confidence motion passed without proper quorum and voting rights compliance.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Prayat Samiti No Confidence Motion Quorum Voting Rights

Mesas Dhoranipur Tea Estate v. Kumkum Mil & Ors.

13 Apr 2017 · Mahan M. Shanannogoudar; Ajay Rastogi

The court set aside the dismissal of a suit concerning a promissory note and settlement, restoring the suit for trial and affirming the binding nature of court-approved settlements and payments.

civil appeal_allowed Significant promissory note settlement High Court approval dismissal of suit

M/s Dunarai Tea Company Limited v. Kumkum Mitra & Ors.

13 Apr 2017 · Mohan M. Shanannogoudar; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a promissory note executed pursuant to a court-approved settlement, rejecting the petitioner’s refund claim and affirming consolidation of related suits.

civil appeal_allowed Significant promissory note court-approved settlement refund claim consolidation of suits