Daily Judgments of 11 April
Calcutta High Court
WPA/1617/2025
Parties: M/S. HEINEN AND HOPMAN ENGINEERING (I) PVT. LTD. vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court held that the pension claimed by the respondent employee falls within the definition of "wages" under Section 2(vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and thus the Referee and Controlling Authority under the West Bengal Shops & Establishment Act, 1963 has jurisdiction to decide the matter.
The court rejected the petitioner company's argument that the pension is not "wages" and that the employee should approach the civil court instead. The court found that the pension is a term of employment and hence is covered under the definition of "wages" in the Payment of Wages Act.
WPA/16493/2004
Parties: MD. ENAT ALI vs TAPAS KUMAR BISWAS & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE REETOBROTO KUMAR MITRA
Area of Law: Contempt of Court Law
The High Court dismissed the contempt petition, holding that the action was barred under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as it was filed after the one-year limitation period. The court found that the petitioner failed to conclusively prove that the order of December 24, 2010 was served on the alleged contemnor (District Inspector of School) within a reasonable time, and that there was no willful or deliberate violation of the court's order by the contemnor.
CRR/3824/2022
Parties: NISAR AHMED vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the petitioner's application for quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 341, 509, and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, filed by the complainant Yusra Akhter. The court held that the mere existence of a previous case or counter-case between the parties, or a strained relationship, does not automatically lead to the quashing of the proceedings. The court examined the material on record, including the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and found that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to support the allegations. The court concluded that the plea of false implication or abuse of the court's process is not sufficient grounds for quashing the proceedings, and it is preferable to let the matter be decided by the trial court.
MAT/1574/2024
Parties: MEMBER SECRETARY & PROJECT DIRECTOR, SUNDERBAN DEVELOPMENT BOARD vs THE WEST BENGAL STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK, JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Area of Law: Cooperative Law
The High Court held that the appellant (Sunderban Development Board) cannot be made a party in the dispute case filed by GAHN against BENFED (a cooperative society) under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006, as the appellant is not a cooperative society and did not have any direct contractual relationship with GAHN. Consequently, the order passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies against the appellant, as affirmed by the Cooperative Appellate Tribunal and the High Court, cannot be sustained. The High Court set aside the part of the impugned judgment directing the appellant to make any payment to BENFED, while not interfering with the direction on BENFED to pay GAHN.