Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 1- 103]Rahul Yadav @ Hari Kumar Yadav, vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 1Gautam Kumar Banarjee vs. Dr. C.P. Vidyarthi & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 2Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. The State of Jharkhand and others 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 3CTET Utteern Abhiyarthi Sangh vs. State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 4Branch Manager,...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 1- 103]
Rahul Yadav @ Hari Kumar Yadav, vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 1
Gautam Kumar Banarjee vs. Dr. C.P. Vidyarthi & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 2
Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. The State of Jharkhand and others 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 3
CTET Utteern Abhiyarthi Sangh vs. State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 4
Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance vs. Binita Toppo and others 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 5
Satyendra Singh Kushwah vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 6
Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Sao vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 7
Rina Kumari vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 8
Pratima Devi v Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 9
M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v Anant Kumar Singh 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 10
Vinod Shankar Jha vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 11
Kunwar Ganjhu v Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 12
Mithilesh Kumar Saw @ Mithlesh Saw & ors. vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 13
Ram Kumar Ravi vs State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 14
Raghubar Singh @ Raghuber Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 15
Ashok Kumar Singh @ Ashok Singh @ A. K. Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 16
State of Jharkhand Versus M/s. Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 17
Principal Commissioner of Central G.S.T. & Central Excise, Ranchi Versus Bihar Foundary and Casting Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 18
Vivek Narsaria Versus The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 19
VD v. The Jharkhand State Bar Council 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 21
Md. Reyazul & Anr. vs State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 22
Hanumant Katha Aayojan Samiti v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 23
Rajmeet Singh Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Ranchi 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 24
Prakash Jha and ors vs The State of Jharkhand and anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 25
Pankaj Mishra Versus Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 26
M/s. Pasari Casting and Rolling Mills Private Ltd. Versus Income-tax Department 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 27
Sudhir Narayan & Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 28
M/s Sevensea Vincom Private Limited vs The PCIT, Central Circle-I, Ranchi & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 29
M/s. Sevensea Vincom Private Limited Verses Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 30
Rahul Gandhi Versus The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 31
Mukesh Mittal vs Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 32
Amit Kumar Kachhap vs Sangeeta Toppo 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 33
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 35 Sadhan Nandi vs The State Of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 34
M/s Aventis Pharma Limited vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 36
M/s. Bihar Foundry & Castings Ltd. Versus Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 37
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ratan Devi 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 38
Mohidul Sk vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 39
Jageshwar Ravidas and Anr vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 40
Hosco Pvt. Ltd. vs Jharkhand Medical & Health Infrastructure Development & Procurement Corporation Ltd and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 41
M/s Aditya and Rashmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 42
Sahodar Mahto Vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 43
Binod Kumar Mishra vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 44
Sachindra Singh @ Sacha @ Sachchi Singh Versus The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 45
Julekha Khatoon v. The State Of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 46
Sudhir Narayan vs. the State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 47
Md. Ramjani Vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 48
Suresh Prasad Vs The State of Jharkhan 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 49
Raghubansh Prasad Singh and Ors vs. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 50
Rahul Gandhi vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 51
Bhavesh Kant Jha vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 52
Jumed Khan vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 53
Nishikant Dubey (Member of Parliament) vs State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 54
Abdul Satar Vs Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax & CX (Jharkhand High Court) 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 56
Urmila International Services Private Limited Versus Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 57
Birsa Agricultural University vs State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 58
Smt. Parwati Devi and Ors vs The Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 59
Samlendra Kumar v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 60
Dr. Punam Sinha @ Punam Sinha Versus The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 61
Sur Singh Sidhu Vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 62
Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank vs Ramu Mochi 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 63
Anvil Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 64
Bapi Namta @ Baapi Namta v. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 65
Munna Sao v. State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 66
Hemant Soren v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 67
Hemant Soren v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 68
K. Kannan and Anr vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 69
Deepak Dokania vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 70
Birsa Agricultural University vs State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 71
Sri Gopikrishna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Versus The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 72
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Insurance Co and Ors vs Kisha Devi and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 73
Court on its own motion Versus Mr. Rajiv Ranjan and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 74
Makhan Lal Jalan V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 75
Bablu Tirkey vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 76
Raja Ram Mandal vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 77
Shahid Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 78
Asit C. Mehta Investment Intermediates Ltd. And ors vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr. And Connected Matters 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 80
V.K.S. Realty vs Rinki Yadav and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 81
Shyam Kumar Gupta and Anr vs. Om Prakash Bhagat 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 82
M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited (R.M.D.) V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 83
Nirakar Mahato V. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 84
Paitar Mandal Vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 85
Diksha Kumari @ Disksha Kumari V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 86
Simant Saurav @ Simant Saunabh V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 87
Shrawan Kumar Das V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 88
Sanjay Kujur V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 89
Anita Devi V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 90
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. M/s Rites Ltd. and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 91
Amir Mallick and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 92
Doman Murmu @ Ramdhu Murmu Versus The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 93
Doman Murmu @ Ramdhu Murmu Versus The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 93
Upendra Mahto @ Upendra Mehta vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 94
Sri Ram Sharma V. State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 95
Amar Yadav @ Amar Kumar V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 96
Awadh Kishore Lal Vs The State of Jharkhand and Another 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 97
Shiva Kumar Deora vs Union of India And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 98
M/s Smart Chip Private Limited vs Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 100
Sandeep Kumar Tripathy @ Sandeep Tripathy vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 101
Rajendra Prasad Sahu V. State of Jharkhand and Others 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 102
Sri Hemant Soren Vs The Directorate Of Enforcement Represented Thr Its Assistant Director Ranchi Zonal Office 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 103
Judgements/Orders This Quarter
Case Title: Rahul Yadav @ Hari Kumar Yadav, vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 1
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that engaging in persistent acts of following, watching, or contacting a child with sexual intent constitutes sexual harassment under Section 11(4) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Justice Subhash Chand observed, “In the FIR itself, it has been stated that the minor victim girl of the informant was sexually harassed by the teacher of the school he used to tease her. He was also having evil eye so the complaint was made against him to the Principal of the school and he was removed from the post of teacher from that school. Thereafter, he had threatened to see them.”
Case Title: Gautam Kumar Banarjee vs. Dr. C.P. Vidyarthi & Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 2
The Jharkhand High Court has observed that a Motor Accident Claim Tribunal is not entitled to discredit the sworn testimony of a claimant regarding their income unless there is counteracting evidence presented by the opposing party.
Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed, “It appears that learned tribunal while deciding the income of the claimant failed to take into notice the evidence on oath of the claimant and there was no rebuttal evidence from opposite parties to cast any doubt in respect of monthly income of the claimant.”
Case Title: Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. The State of Jharkhand and others
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 3
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that registration of mining equipment, including drill masters and dumpers is mandatory under the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the Court has further said that the issue of whether a vehicle is taxable or not will depend upon the test as to whether the vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another.
Case Title: Jharkhandi CTET Utteern Abhiyarthi Sangh vs. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 4
In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has granted permission to residents of Jharkhand who had successfully cleared the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) and Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) from neighboring states to participate in the recruitment examination for Assistant Teacher positions in Jharkhand.
The Court passed such a direction upon noting that Jharkhand had not held CTET or TET exams in many years, and further directed the State to conduct such exams every year.
Case Title: Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance vs. Binita Toppo and others
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 5
In an important order, the Jharkhand High Court has held that an insurance agency is liable to pay compensation for a motor vehicle accident claim for a hired driver in the event of his death, even if the accident is caused due to the driver's negligence. This liability arises once the insurer has accepted additional premium to cover indemnity of vehicle owner.
Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed, “In view of the above discussion and reasons, I am of the definite opinion that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation for a Motor Vehicle Accident claim for a hired driver in the event of his death, even if the accident is caused due to negligence of the driver. This liability arises once the insurer has accepted additional premium to cover the liability of paid employee and to indemnify the vehicle's owner.”
Case Title: Satyendra Singh Kushwah vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 6
Underscoring the importance of due process and compliance with statutory requirements, the Jharkhand High Court, in a significant ruling, quashed criminal proceedings for non-compliance with summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (CGST Act).
Notably, Section 70 of the CGST Act empowers concerned officers to issue summons to persons to give evidence and produce documents.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Sao vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 7
The Jharkhand High Court has recently upheld the order of a Family Court directing the younger son of a man to provide him with a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000.
Justice Subhash Chand observed, “Though from the evidence adduced by both the parties, it is found that the father is having some agricultural land yet is not able to cultivate the same. He also depends upon his elder son, with whom, he resides. The father has given the share in whole property to his younger son Manoj Sao equally but he has not been maintained by his younger son for more than 15 years. Even if for the sake of argument, the father earns something; it is pious duty of a son to maintain his old aged father.”
Case Title: Rina Kumari vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 8
The Jharkhand High Court in a significant judgement has observed that non-completion of the 'triple test formalities' for identifying seats to be reserved for OBC category is not at all a ground to defer or delay election of local self-government
Justice Ananda Sen observed, “the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the Election should be notified even if the “triple test formalities” has not yet been completed. From the aforesaid judgment, the issue has been set at rest and now as per the judgment, it is not sine qua non to conclude the “triple test formalities” before holding elections for a local body.”
Case Title: Pratima Devi v Union of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 9
The Jharkhand High Court recently observed that the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in withholding interest on compensation payable to a bereaved family, for the period between the date of accident and the date on which the application for delay in making a claim before the Tribunal was allowed.
Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed, “The Tribunal has awarded maximum amount of compensation as per Rules but withholding interest from the date of accident to the date of condonation of delay is not justified under law. Therefore, the appellants are held entitled for simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of accident i.e. 25/26.02.2018 till the date of actual payment.”
Case Title: M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v Anant Kumar Singh
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 10
The Jharkhand High Court while dismissing an appeal directed challenging the Commercial Court's dismissal of a Section 34 Petition against an arbitrator's award, has held that a mere contravention of substantive law by itself does not constitute a valid ground for setting aside an arbitral award subsequent to the 2015 amendment in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act).
The division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary observed, “As explained above, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that post-2015 amendment a mere contravention of the substantive law of India, by itself, is no longer a ground available to set aside an arbitral award.”
Case Title: Vinod Shankar Jha vs State of Jharkhand & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 11
The Jharkhand High Court has held that unless there is a declaration by a civil Court that a deed is vitiated by fraud, a registered deed cannot be cancelled by the Registrar.
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary set aside a Circular conferring such power on the Registrar and observed that, "The executive power of the State Government under Article 162 is coextensive with the legislative power of the State legislature. But, in the absence of any law, the State or its officers in the exercise of executive authority, cannot infringe citizen's rights merely because legislature has power to make law on the subject...registration of an instrument entails legal consequence affecting the legal rights of a citizen, and power of cancellation of such document cannot be permitted by an executive order, as it will be against the scheme of statutory provisions as contained in the Registration Act, 1908.”
Case Title: Kunwar Ganjhu v Union of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 12
The Jharkhand High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed against the rejection of bail by the Special Court to a UAPA accused allegedly connected to the banned terrorist organization CPI(Maoist).
A division bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed, “The facts disclosed by the appellant were duly corroborated during course of investigation by way of statement of witnesses and thereby, prima facie the allegation as made against the accused/ petitioner appears to be true.”
Case Title: Mithilesh Kumar Saw @ Mithlesh Saw & ors. vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 13
The Jharkhand High Court, in acquitting an accused under Section 354 IPC, has noted that the mere tearing of clothing during a spontaneous altercation does not necessarily constitute an offence of outraging a woman's modesty.
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “For offence under Section 354 IPC, intention to outrage modesty of a woman, is the fundamental ingredient. Touch caused otherwise during the course of a fight, between two warring section cannot be called an act to outrage the modesty. If in a free fight wearing apparels are torn, it will not invariably make out an offence under this Section.”
Case Title: Ram Kumar Ravi vs State of Jharkhand & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 14
While rejecting a revision application filed for quashing grant of maintenance to a woman, the Jharkhand High Court held that documentary evidence of marriage in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, is not required, especially when the evidence is on record that the Applicant was living with the opposite party as husband and wife.
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “Documentary evidence of marriage cannot be insisted in all cases, particularly in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. If the parties live together as husband and wife, a presumption of marriage can be drawn.”
Case Title: Raghubar Singh @ Raghuber Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 15
The Jharkhand High Court has made it clear that a father is liable to support and maintain his children, irrespective of their mother's employment.
Justice Subhash Chand observed, “So far as the income of the petitioner—wife in the maintenance application is concerned, admittedly she is getting Rs.12 to 14 thousand per month and she is maintaining herself and both the minor children. Even if the salary of the wife Nibha Singh is taken into consideration, the responsibility of father of both the children is also to maintain both the children.”
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Singh @ Ashok Singh @ A. K. Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 16
The Jharkhand High Court has held that once the marital relationship is disproved, there cannot be any order of maintenance under section 125 of the CrPc.
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed that the respondent-woman had filed a criminal case against the revision petitioner in 2008 alleging that he made a false promise of marriage to her. This, the Court held, "demolishes the case of the Applicant that she had been married to the petitioner in 2005. Once the marital relationship is disproved, there cannot be any order of maintenance under section 125 of the CrPC.”
Case Title: State of Jharkhand Versus M/s. Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 17
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has acted in undue haste in disposing of the revision applications. It is trite law that if an authority acts in undue haste, malice in law is to be presumed, and his action is deemed to be mala fide.
The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshanhas observed that the Additional Commissioner, merely on the strength of a letter written by DCCT, initiated suo motu revision proceedings without even calling for records of the case and without even examining the orders in question.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Central G.S.T. & Central Excise, Ranchi Versus Bihar Foundary and Casting Ltd
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 18
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the determination of the value of the excisable goods for the purpose of assessment falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshanhas observed that the appeals are not maintainable, and the same would lie before the Apex Court under Section 35L, as the jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters is specifically excluded under Section 35G and it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Section 35L.
Case Title: Vivek Narsaria Versus The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 19
The Jharkhand High Court has opined that the Preventive Wing of the CGST and DGGI Wing of the CGST shall forward all their investigation carried out as against the petitioner and inter-related transactions to the State Authorities, who shall continue with the proceedings from the same stage.
The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has stated that “we failed to understand as to what had become so emergent that prior to any determination or finding of any irregular/inadmissible/wrong availment of Input Tax Credit, the bank account had to be attached, which appears to be an 'arm twisting method' to make the petitioner succumb to the particular authority, which cannot be the dictum of the Act and we deprecate the same.”
Case Title: VD v. The Jharkhand State Bar Council
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 21
Last week, the Jharkhand High Court annulled disciplinary proceedings initiated by the State Bar Council against a lawyer accused of engaging in an "illicit" physical relationship with his client. The complaint was lodged by the client's husband while being involved in a matrimonial dispute with her.
The lawyer challenged the commencement and continuation of the disciplinary inquiry initiated by the Jharkhand State Bar Council through a notice dated August 26, 2023.
Case Title: Md. Reyazul & Anr. vs State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 22
The Jharkhand High Court, in a recent decision partially allowing a revision application in a case spanning 28 years, emphasized that establishing the fact of recovery merely requires the prosecution to present the seizure list as evidence.
Justice Ambuj Nath observed, “In order to prove the factum of recovery, it is sufficient for the prosecution to adduce the seizure list in evidence. Section 100(5) Cr.P.C. does not require the witnesses of search and seizure to attend the court as a witness unless specially summoned by the court. I do not find any irregularity on the ground that the seizure list witnesses did not appear in the court to record their evidence.”
Case Title: Hanumant Katha Aayojan Samiti v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 23
The Jharkhand High Court has granted permission to the Hanumant Katha Aayojan Samiti (Samiti) to conduct the "Hanumant Katha '' event, despite the State authorities initially denying approval.
The Court while granting permission to the Samiti, stated, “There is no doubt that the respondents can impose restriction, but ground for such restrictions should be in consonance with the grounds mentioned in Article 19(3) of the Constitution.”
Case Title: Rajmeet Singh Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Ranchi
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 24
The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the income tax addition as the assessees have failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, or genuineness of the creditors, who have given cash loans.
The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that usually the matter would have been remitted to the AO for mentioning the correct provision and proceeding in accordance with law, but in the instant matter, the source of income in the case of both the assessees has not been proved, inasmuch as both the assessees have failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, or genuineness of the creditors, who have given cash loans as claimed by them, thus we are of the view that remitting the cases to the AO will be a futile exercise.
Case Title: Prakash Jha and ors vs The State of Jharkhand and anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 25
The Jharkhand High Court has quashed all criminal proceedings against Indian film producer Prakash Jha and other accused in connection with a land allocation dispute.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi observed, “Section 415 I.P.C. is definition of cheating. In the light of said definition to hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. Consequence of not encashing of drafts in question suggests that intention from the very beginning was not there which is paramount consideration in a case arising out under section 415 I.P.C. and other sections with regard to the cheating.”
Case Title: Pankaj Mishra Versus Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 26
The Jharkhand High Court on Saturday rejected the bail petition of Pankaj Mishra, an MLA representative of the state's former Chief Minister Hemant Soren.
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “Petitioner being the political representative of the then Chief Minister enjoys political and administrative connection. Matter involves crime proceed being generated by large scale illegal mining activity being carried out, and the Petitioner appears to be the king pin. There are prima facie materials to suggest his pivotal role in laundering of the crime proceed generated in illegal mining activity. Trial is at its nascent stage with charge being framed on 03.03.2023 and out of 42 only 10 witnesses having been examined. Petitioner's health condition is monitored by the Jail doctors and was referred to and treated in higher centre at Delhi.”
Case Title: M/s. Pasari Casting and Rolling Mills Private Ltd. Versus Income-tax Department
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 27
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the show cause notice should give the noticeee a reasonable opportunity to make objections against proposed charges indicated in the notice, and the person proceeded against must be told the charges against him so that he can make his defense and prove his innocence.
The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that in the entire course of the proceeding, at no stage is the petitioner made aware of the provisions of law that have been contravened and/or under which the additions are sought to be made, which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, and the procedure adopted by the Department is not fair or proper.
Case Title: Sudhir Narayan & Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 28
The Jharkhand High Court recently set aside a bail condition imposed on accused to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.12 lakh alleged to have been cheated by him.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that inclusion of a condition for payment of money for bail tends to create an impression that bail could be secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated. "That is really not the purpose and intent of the provisions for grant of bail," the bench said.
Case Title: M/s Sevensea Vincom Private Limited vs The PCIT, Central Circle-I, Ranchi & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 29
The Jharkhand High Court has held that any notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is normally three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and extendable beyond three years to 10 years, provided the income that has escaped assessment is Rs. 50,00,000 or more.
The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan have observed that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 is barred by the limitation period prescribed under Section 149, is illegal, unsustainable, and void ab initio, and is liable to be set aside; consequently, all subsequent actions, notices, and orders are also liable to be quashed.
Case Title: M/s. Sevensea Vincom Private Limited Verses Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 30
Finding that the notice issued u/s 148 is barred by the limitation period prescribed u/s 149 of the Income tax Act, 1961, the Jharkhand High Court (Ranchi Bench) ruled that the very initiation of reassessment proceeding is wholly without jurisdiction.
The Division Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan observed that “The three-year time period of A.Y 2016-17 had ended on 31.03.2020. Accordingly, the Impugned Notice, dated 21.07.2022, is beyond 3 years' time period. Further, the said notice is for alleged escaped income of Rs. 39,21,450/- which is less than Rs. 50,00,000/- and thus, the said notice cannot take the benefit of extended period of limitation which is beyond three years till ten years”. (Para 10)
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi Versus The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 31
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to quash the ongoing proceedings in the trial court in a criminal defamation suit filed against him for calling former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national president and current Union Home Minister Amit Shah a "murder accused".
On February 16, Gandhi's written version was presented in the court, after which, the bench of Justice Ambuj Nath reserved the decision.
Case Title: Mukesh Mittal vs Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 32
The Jharkhand High Court has observed that individuals implicated in a PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) case, who become involved after the commission of the scheduled offense by aiding in the concealment or utilization of proceeds of crime, are not required to be accused in the scheduled offense.
The court emphasized that these individuals can still face prosecution under PMLA as long as the scheduled offense remains valid.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Kachhap vs Sangeeta Toppo
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 33
The Jharkhand High Court has stated that if a wife chooses to live separately from her husband without any valid reason, she is not eligible for maintenance under Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Justice Subhash Chand emphasized, “In view of the overall evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, it is found that the respondent-applicant has been residing aloof from the husband without any reasonable cause. Accordingly, this point of determination is decided in favour of the petitioner-husband and against the opposite party-wife. In consequence thereof, in view of Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 she is not entitled to any amount of maintenance.”
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 35
The Jharkhand High Court today DISMISSED a petition filed by the former state Chief Minister Hemant Soren seeking permission to participate in the budget session of the assembly which started on February 23.
A bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad had reserved its verdict in the matter on February 26 after hearing Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal (appearing for Soren) and Addl. Solicitor General of India SV Raju [for the Enforcement Directorate (ED)] at length.
Case Title: Sadhan Nandi vs The State Of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 34
The Jharkhand High Court while overturning the trial court's decision denying the release of a seized truck involved in an alleged illegal stone crushing operation, has observed that mere pendency of confiscation proceeding is not a bar to dispose of the application for release of the vehicle.
Justice Subhash Chand observed, "From the bare perusal of Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, it is evident that though the court of Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned is empowered to conduct the confiscation proceeding in regard to the minerals, tool, equipment, vehicle or anything seized shall dispose of the same; yet this jurisdiction of the court of Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned is not exclusive jurisdiction.”
Case Title: M/s Aventis Pharma Limited vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 36
The Jharkhand High Court has rejected the plea of Aventis Pharma, a global healthcare company, seeking to dismiss the entire criminal proceedings related to a complaint filed under section 27(d) of the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The complaint arose from a dispute regarding samples of Ofloxacin Infusion taken from three different batches.
The samples were collected following a complaint from the Director of Rajendra Institute of Medical Science (RIMS), Ranchi, and were subsequently investigated by the Government Analyst in Kolkata.
Case Title: M/s. Bihar Foundry & Castings Ltd. Versus Union of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 37
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the issuance of pre-SCN consultation is mandated under proviso to Section 28(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, before issuing the show cause notice.
The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the mandatory pre-SCN consultation, as mandated under proviso to Section 28(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with the Pre-Notice Consultation Regulation, 2018, was not complied with while issuing the impugned SCNs; hence, the subsequent Order-in-Original and the 1st Appellate Order were bad in law, being void ab initio and a nullity in the eyes of law.
Case Title: National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ratan Devi
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 38
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that in instances of composite negligence resulting in harm or death to an individual by two or more wrongdoers, whether they act jointly or independently, they bear joint and several liability. In such cases, the injured party retains the option to seek full compensation from any or all of the negligent parties involved, given the nature of composite negligence, the Court further observed.
Justice Subhash Chand observed, “From the averment made in the claim petition and also the evidence on record, oral and documentary, it was a case of composite negligence and in case of a composite negligence where the damage or death is caused to any person by two or more wrongdoers, they may be either joint or independent tort-feasors, they are jointly and severely liable. Injured person has the choice to claim whole damage against all or any of them since it is a case of composite negligence.”
Consent Not Coerced: Jharkhand High Court Overturns Rape Conviction After 12 Years
Case Title: Mohidul Sk vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 39
After a 12-year period, the Jharkhand High Court overturned a trial court's conviction order in a rape case, allowing an appeal filed by the accused.
Court observed that in the instant case there had been an ongoing physical relationship between the appellant and the victim for approximately six months, and it was only after the victim became pregnant that the matter was brought to light.
Moreover, upon reviewing the evidence, the Court concluded that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was consensual, leading to pregnancy before the case was officially reported.
Case Title: Jageshwar Ravidas and Anr vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 40
The Jharkhand High Court, in partly allowing a criminal appeal related to a 27-year-old murder case, noted that the intention of an assailant can be discerned from the nature of the injury inflicted, and without sufficient evidence of such intention, it becomes challenging to establish that the assailant had the requisite intent to cause death.
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “After having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the materials on record, I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that in absence of proof of postmortem examination report, when the nature of ante-mortem injury has not been proved, it is difficult to ascertain the intention or knowledge of the assailant to cause death.”
Case Title: Hosco Pvt. Ltd. vs Jharkhand Medical & Health Infrastructure Development & Procurement Corporation Ltd and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 41
In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Hosco Pvt. Ltd. while firmly emphasizing that price alone cannot be the determining factor in awarding a contract. Furthermore, it was ruled that a tenderer lacking technical qualifications does not have standing to challenge the tender process.
The Court also held that judgments made by expert committees must not be subject to scrutiny by courts and in cases involving tenders, the focus should solely be on the decision-making process rather than the perceived validity of the decision itself.
Case Title: M/s Aditya and Rashmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 42
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the matter of liquidated damages comes into play specifically when a contract is terminated due to a breach of its terms and conditions, and moreover, if the termination of the contract itself is deemed unlawful, various consequences may ensue, such as the potential imposition of liquidated damages or the initiation of a certificate proceeding to recover the relevant amount.
Case Title: Sahodar Mahto Vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 43
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that settlements, akin to leases, must adhere to the registration requirements outlined in Section 17 of the Registration Act. Nevertheless, in cases concerning agricultural lease or settlement, an unregistered settlement document, coupled with evidence of possession, has been deemed adequate to establish the existence of a settlement agreement.
According to the petitioners' case, the land in question was initially recorded in the R.S. Record of Rights as Gair Mazarua Khas belonging to the former landlord. Subsequently, 1.60 acres of this land were settled in favor of the petitioner's father.
Case Title: Binod Kumar Mishra vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 44
In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court while granting permission for the submission of additional documentary evidence in a case pertaining to the dishonour of a cheque ruled that while Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) does not explicitly address the addition of documentary evidence when read in conjunction with Section 91, additional documentary evidence can be submitted to ensure a fair trial and reach a just decision even after the conclusion of evidence.
Section 376 IPC | Minor's Consent Not Ground To Absolve Accused: Jharkhand High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Sachindra Singh @ Sacha @ Sachchi Singh Versus The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 45
The Jharkhand High Court while affirming a judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and sentence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, has observed that despite the victim being a consenting party and engaging in a sexual relationship leading to her pregnancy over several months, the accused cannot be absolved of guilt solely based on her consent as she was a minor.
Case Title: Julekha Khatoon v. The State Of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 46
The Jharkhand High Court has emphasized that when issuing a proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), the court must record its satisfaction regarding whether the accused is absconding or concealing themselves to evade arrest.
The Jharkhand High Court ruled that the orders issued by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), which included a non-bailable warrant, a proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., and an attachment order of the petitioner's property under Section 83 of Cr.P.C., were legally unsustainable.
Case Title: Sudhir Narayan vs. the State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 47
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the conditions to be imposed while granting bail must not be onerous or unreasonable or excessive. The Court stressed that conditions should aim to ensure the accused's appearance before authorities, unhindered trial proceedings, and community safety.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “The conditions to be imposed must not be onerous or unreasonable or excessive. In the context of grant of bail, all such conditions that would facilitate the appearance of the accused before the investigating officer/ Court, unhindered completion of investigation/trial and safety of the community assume relevance. However, inclusion of a condition for payment of money for bail tends to create an impression that bail could be secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated. That is really not the purpose and intent of the provisions for grant of bail.”
Case Title: Md. Ramjani Vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 48
In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court emphasized that gravity of offence cannot be the ground to deny the bail application of a juvenile, unless there are exceptional circumstances as provided in the proviso to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Section 12 prescribes that a child alleged to be in conflict with law shall be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer/ any fit person. The proviso states that the juvenile shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person's release would defeat the ends of justice. The JJ Board is further mandated to record the reasons and circumstances for denying bail.
Case Title: Suresh Prasad Vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 49
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that when the prosecution establishes the fundamental elements of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, the court can assume the guilt of the accused, and consequently, under the provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden shifts to the accused to challenge this presumption of guilt and demonstrate their innocence.
Justices Ratnaker Bhengra and Ambuj Nath observed, “The provision of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 manifests the intention of legislature making mandatory application on the part of the Court to presume that death has been committed by a person who had subjected her to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Once the basic ingredient of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is proved by the prosecution then the Court will presume the guilt of the accused. At this stage, the burden shift upon the accused as per the provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to rebut this presumption of guilt and to prove his innocence.”
Case Title: Raghubansh Prasad Singh and Ors vs. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 50
After a lengthy legal battle spanning 21 years, the Jharkhand High Court has stayed further effect of a 2003 Resolution passed by the State government for providing reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in service promotions.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Navneet Kumar allowed 12 writ petitions on finding the Resolution to be in non-compliance with Supreme Court guidelines.
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 51
In relief to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, Jharkhand High Court has stayed the non-bailable warrant issued against him by Chaibasa civil court on February 27 this year in a 2018 defamation case concerning his remarks on Union Home Minister Amit Shah.
Justice Rajesh Kumar presiding over the case, postponed the warrant for one month with a condition, directing Gandhi to take necessary legal measures before the trial.
Case Title: Bhavesh Kant Jha vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 52
The Jharkhand High Court has directed the State government to release 19 years of pending salary to an illegally terminated employee of its Department of Industries (Handloom, Resham and Sericulture).
The court reiterated that in cases where an employee is found to be entirely blameless, yet subjected to illegal termination motivated by malice, it would be unjust to deny them the benefits of employment they rightfully deserve.
Case Title: Jumed Khan vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 53
In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has underscored the pivotal role of Investigating Officer in cases reliant on circumstantial evidence. The Court highlighted that failure to establish the evidence collected by the former Investigating Officer by the second Investigating Officer could prove fatal to the prosecution's case.
Justice Subhash Chand observed, “In this case, the first Investigating Officer, who investigated the whole of the case, has not been examined only the second Investigating Officer has been examined as P.W.-6, Kiren Surin, who filed the charge-sheet relying upon the evidence collected by the former Investigating Officer. In case of circumstantial evidence, the examination of the Investigating Officer becomes very important. More so, the evidence, which has been collected by the former Investigating Officer has not been proved by the 2nd Investigating Officer, as such, the same becomes fatal to the prosecution case.”
Case Title: Nishikant Dubey (Member of Parliament) vs State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 54
While observing that a public representative is entitled to raise a legitimate public issue in peaceful demonstrations, the Jharkhand High Court on February 9, discharged the Member of Parliament (MP) Nishikant Dubey from a criminal case associated with a 2009 protest.
Dubey, a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), represents the Godda constituency in Jharkhand.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, "The public representative is entitled to raise a legitimate public issue and for that, a peaceful demonstration is going on everywhere. The petitioner is not indulged in any act of violence."
Case Title: Sanjay Pandey vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 55
The Jharkhand High Court has made it clear that before issuing a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C, Court must adequately record satisfaction regarding the accused's absconding status or that accused is concealing themselves to evade arrest. It thus quashed an order passed by a Special POCSO Court.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary observed, “the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Chatra has not categorically recorded its satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest but has only mentioned that it is likely that the petitioner may evade the process of law and has not fixed any time or place for appearance of the petitioner who is the accused person of this case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Chatra has committed gross illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. without complying the mandatory requirements of law.”
Case Title: Abdul Satar Vs Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax & CX (Jharkhand High Court)
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 56
In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has permitted the filing of an application for revocation of cancelled GST registration, despite the expiration of the limitation period. The decision stemmed from a petition filed by a proprietor aggrieved by the dismissal of their petition under section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). The petitioner sought to avail themselves of the option under section 30 of the GST Act for revocation of the cancellation of registration.
Case Title: Urmila International Services Private Limited Versus Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 57
The Jharkhand High Court has held that Rule 15 of the Jharkhand Excise (Operation of Retail Product Shops through Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Limited) Rules, 2022, and the corresponding clauses of the contract have to be restricted only to those situations where the placement agency has been found, albeit after hearing the agency, to have failed to provide manpower to Jharkhand State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (JSBCL), which has resulted in pecuniary loss to the corporation.
The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that only when the placement agency fails to perform its duties and obligations falling within its scope of work, coupled with monetary loss to the JSBCL, can the said placement agency be held liable to that extent after following the due process of law.
Case Title: Birsa Agricultural University vs State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 58
A division bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising of Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. and Navneet Kumar, J., while deciding Letters Patent Appeals in the case of Birsa Agricultural University vs State of Jharkhand, has held that denying pensionary benefits to an employee is to rob them of a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution, as pension is earned by the employee on account of their meritorious past services.
Case Title: Smt. Parwati Devi and Ors vs The Union of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 59
The Jharkhand High Court has refused to grant compensation to the family members of a Litti-Chatni vendor who fell from a moving train at Jasidih Station and lost his life due to overcrowding and a sudden jolt. The court stated that he was not a 'bona fide passenger' as he was boarding the train to sell Litti-Chatni without a proper license or authority issued by the Railway Administration or a valid ticket.
Justice Subhash Chand presiding over the case held, “Therefore, from the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties it is found that the husband of the claimant Ramdev Raut was not bona fide passenger, while he was boarding in the running train on 03.05.2014 for selling the Litti-Chatni as he was a vendor without any license or authority issued by Railway Administration and was also having no railway ticket on the alleged date of the incident. The said accident was caused whereby he sustained multiple injuries and died accordingly this point of determination is against the appellants/claimants.”
Case Title: Samlendra Kumar v. Union of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 60
In a recent case, the Jharkhand High Court emphasized the importance of considering various factors before imposing punishment in disciplinary proceedings. The Court highlighted that while the petitioner had exceeded the leave period, it was important to acknowledge the circumstances surrounding this action.
Justice S.N. Pathak, presiding over the case, observed, “the overstay of leave by the petitioner was under the compelling circumstances. The finding of the inquiry officer was based on the fact that the application for extension of leave was rejected and hence, it is the duty of the petitioner to join the duty. Of course, it is the duty of the employee like the petitioner that too in a disciplined force to join immediately on the duty place, once leave period is exhausted.”
Case Title: Dr. Punam Sinha @ Punam Sinha Versus The State of Jharkhand and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 61
The Jharkhand High Court has emphasized that when a case falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of sessions, it is essential for the Enquiry Court to summon the complainant to examine all the witnesses supporting the allegations in the complaint.
Justice Subhash Chand, presiding over the case, observed, “proviso of this Section 202(a) and Section 202(b) and Section 202 (2) provides that if the case is exclusively triable by the court of sessions, it is incumbent upon the Enquiry Court to call upon the complaint to examine all the complaint witness in support of the allegations made in the complaint.”
Conviction Solely Based On Uncorroborated 'Last Seen Evidence' Not Sustainable: Jharkhand High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction After 7 Yrs
Case Title: Sur Singh Sidhu Vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 62
The Jharkhand High Court recently set aside the conviction and sentence of a murder convict while observing that the conviction cannot be said to be just and proper solely on the basis of last-seen evidence which is not corroborated with any evidence.
The division bench comprising Justice Subhash Chand and Ananda Sen observed, “The prosecution case, which is based on circumstantial evidence, the motive of occurrence is neither shown in the FIR nor it came in the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. In case of circumstantial evidence, the evidence of motive becomes relevant and important, for lack of the same, prosecution case becomes doubtful.”
Case Title: Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank vs Ramu Mochi
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 63
The Jharkhand High Court division bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan held that the objection regarding the 'Reference' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, should be raised before the final Award.
The High Court held that the Industrial Tribunal, being a statutory creation, derives its jurisdiction from the reference and is not empowered to scrutinize the validity of the Reference itself. Since the reference was not challenged before the Final Award, and considering the active participation of the Management in the proceedings, the High Court held the objection regarding the reference to maintainability untenable.
Case Title: Anvil Cables Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 64
The Jharkhand High Court has held that any unjust withholding of money or property from another party goes against the fundamental principles of justice, fairness, and good conscience. In this context, the unauthorized deductions made from the ongoing bills are unquestionably unlawful.
Furthermore, the Court has imposed a substantial penalty of Rs 5 Lacs on the Managing Director of Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (JBVNL) for engaging in unnecessary litigation and presenting frivolous defenses.
Case Title: Bapi Namta @ Baapi Namta v. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 65
The Jharkhand High Court has overturned the conviction of an accused, ruling that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any deceitful means or inducement by the accused that compelled the deceased to relocate.
The Court emphasized that in the absence of foundational elements, an accused cannot be found guilty under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Munna Sao v. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 66
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that escorting a minor girl to different places constitutes enticing, thus resulting in a conviction for kidnapping under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. It held that regardless of the minor's consent, taking or enticing the minor without their guardians consent would tantamount to kidnapping.
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the bench, set aside the conviction under Section 366A for procuration, but instead convicted the appellants under Section 363 for kidnapping.
Case Title: Hemant Soren v. Directorate of Enforcement
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 67
Today, the Jharkhand High Court rejected the interim bail plea of former Chief Minister Hemant Soren, who is currently in jail. However, the High Court has granted him permission to participate in the last rites ceremonies of his late uncle, Raja Ram Soren.
In his application, Soren prayed for grant of provisional bail in connection with an ECIR Case registered under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on account of the demise of his uncle whose last rites will take place at village Nemra, Gola, District Ramgarh.
Case Title: Hemant Soren v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 68
The Jharkhand High Court, in its dismissal of the writ petition filed by former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Land 'Scam' case, asserted that he “cannot wriggle out of the mess he created for himself” by raising “bogey of political vendetta.”
The division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Chandrashekhar and Justice Navneet Kumar, while rejecting Soren's plea, observed, "The recovery of huge cash from his Delhi residence is not denied by the petitioner and the excuse of the illness of his parents for keeping more than 36 lacs in cash prima facie looks untenable. In this state of affairs, by raising a technical plea the petitioner cannot wriggle out of the mess he created for himself. Like the last resort to a losing litigant, an anxious petitioner has raised the bogey of political vendetta."
Case Title: K. Kannan and Anr vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 69
The Jharkhand High Court single bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that the period of limitation under the Factories Act is strictly 3 months from either the date of the offence or the date on which the occurrence came to the Inspector's knowledge. Further, there exists no provision for the condonation of delay for the filing of such complaints.
It was also observed that the Judicial Magistrate did not apply his judicial discretion appropriately after taking cognizance of the matter. Consequently, the High Court quashed the proceedings against the occupiers of a factory.
Case Title: Deepak Dokania vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 70
The Jharkhand High Court single bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that the Management could not be held responsible for the accident of a Workman in the factory premises if despite providing the safety equipment, the Workman fails to utilize it.
Case Title: Birsa Agricultural University vs State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 71
A division bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising of Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. and Navneet Kumar, J., while deciding Letters Patent Appeals in the case of Birsa Agricultural University vs State of Jharkhand, has held that denying pensionary benefits to an employee is to rob them of a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution, as pension is earned by the employee on account of their meritorious past services.
Case Title: Sri Gopikrishna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Versus The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 72
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the action of Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam (JBVNL) offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India by refusing to reimburse contractor GST impact on indirect transactions.
“This is a settled law that the state and its instrumentalities are required to demonstrate fair play in action. In “ABL International Ltd. and Another,"17 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that even in contractual matters, the state and its instrumentalities are required to follow the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner-firms were agitating for their right to refund or reimbursement for a long ,” the bench of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Navneet Kumar observed.
Case Title: The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Insurance Co and Ors vs Kisha Devi and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 73
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that Permanent Lok Adalats have the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes pertaining to insurance claims.
Presiding over the case, Justice Navneet Kumar emphasized, “Permanent Lok Adalat...has right to decide the dispute which could not be settled by a settlement agreement between the parties and the dispute does not relate to any offence. Such right has been vested in Permanent Lok Adalat with respect to the cases which arise in relation to Public Utility Services such as transport service for the carriage of passenger or goods by air, road or water; postal telegraph or telephone services; supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment; system of public conservancy or sanitation; service in hospital or dispensary; or insurance service etc. need to be settled urgently so that people get justice without delay.”
Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Contempt Proceedings Against State's Advocate General And AAG
Case Title: Court on its own motion Versus Mr. Rajiv Ranjan and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 74
The Jharkhand High Court has granted substantial relief to the state's Advocate General Rajeev Ranjan and Additional Advocate General Sachin Kumar, in a petition seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against them. The petition stemmed from alleged remarks and conduct while seeking the recusal of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi from a matter.
For context, a single bench of the High Court was seized of a writ petition in a murder case. On August 13, 2021, the Advocate General had requested Justice Dwivedi's recusal, citing an overheard remark from the counsel for the petitioner, suggesting that the case will be allowed "200%". Thereafter, while delivering its judgment on September 1, 2021, the writ Court formed a prima facie opinion that the AG and AAG 'had committed criminal contempt of the Court'. Accordingly, suo moto was initiated and notices were issued to both for alleged criminal contempt.
Case Title: Makhan Lal Jalan V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 75
The Jharkhand High Court while expounding on Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, has emphasized that rectification of an instrument is imperative if the true intention of the parties is not reflected due to mutual mistake.
Justice Ananda Sen, observed, “Since their records were based on the registered sale deed and the settlement deed, those instrument first needs to be corrected, then only the revenue records could have been corrected. To get these instruments rectified, the petitioner had to approach a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in terms of Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In this case without getting an appropriate relief in terms of Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, the petitioner got the revenue records corrected. This was not the correct procedure. So far as the enquiry report is concerned, the same can be a piece of evidence in favour of the petitioner in the suit filed under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act.”
Case Title: Bablu Tirkey vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 76
In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court overturned the judgement of a trial court in a murder case, emphasizing the necessity for the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that unless the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of proof cannot be shifted onto the accused, as stipulated under section 106 of the Evidence Act.
The division bench Justices Subhash Chand and Ananda Sen underscored, “Unless and until, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt its case, the burden of proof upon the accused under section 106 of Evidence Act cannot be shifted. Herein from the prosecution evidence, the presence of the appellant prior or on the fateful night of the homicidal death of wife of appellant in his tenanted room being not proved, the burden of proof under section 106 of Evidence Act cannot be shift upon the appellant-convict.”
Case Title: Raja Ram Mandal vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 77
The Jharkhand High Court has emphasized that for the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act to apply, the prosecution must establish through evidence that the deceased faced cruelty or harassment related to dowry shortly before her unnatural death in her marital home. This presumption, the Court stated, is only triggered when all the elements of the offense under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code are proven by the prosecution.
The division bench comprising Justices Subhash Chand and Ananda Sen, observed, “The conjoined reading of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also shows that there must be material to show that soon before death, the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment based on demand of dowry.”
Case Title: Shahid Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 78
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate is not a competent authority to order the confiscation of a commercial vehicle.
Justice Rajesh Kumar presiding over the case observed, “Considering the fact that the Deputy Commissioner -cum- District Magistrate is not a competent authority to pass the order of confiscation. Accordingly, the order dated 08.07.2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner -cum- District Magistrate, Latehar in Confiscation Case No.57 of 2023 in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.44 of 2023 is, hereby, quashed and set- aside.”
Existence Of Arbitration Clause Doesn't Automatically Bar Criminal Proceedings: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: Asit C. Mehta Investment Intermediates Ltd. And ors vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr. And Connected Matters
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 80
The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that the existence of an arbitration clause does not automatically bar criminal proceedings. It held that quashing of cognizance or proceedings, as well as the initiation of arbitral proceedings related to commercial transactions, are not determinative factors.
The bench held that merely because there is a remedy available for breach of contract through arbitration does not automatically lead the court to conclude that civil remedy is the sole recourse. This does not render the initiation of criminal proceedings an abuse of the court's process, warranting the use of inherent powers to quash such proceedings.
Case Title: V.K.S. Realty vs Rinki Yadav and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 81
Holding that flat-owners are "entitled" to enjoy common facilities, the Jharkhand High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by builder VKS Realty against quashing of new building plan which permitted construction over 46 kathas common area of Ratan Heights, a residential complex in Morabadi.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice S Chandrashekhar and Justice Arun Kumar Rai said the original map sanctioned for the property was over 86 kathas, with flat-owners entitled to common facilities built around 46 kathas.
Case Title: Shyam Kumar Gupta and Anr vs. Om Prakash Bhagat
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 82
The Jharkhand High Court has observed that, in a specific performance suit, the Courts cannot grant relief of refund of earnest money if it is not specifically prayed for.
“Since the plaintiffs in the plaint in itself has not sought the alternate relief for refund of the earnest money or the further amount so paid, the Court cannot give direction for refund of the said amount to the plaintiffs/appellants in view of Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963,” the single bench of Justice Subhash Chand observed.
Case Title: M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited (R.M.D.) V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 83
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that summons in a criminal case to face trial cannot be issued against positions or posts, as a post is not a juridical person. Therefore, the Court stated that taking cognizance without naming any individual responsible for the alleged criminal act is not sustainable in law.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the case observed, "summons in a criminal case to face trial cannot be issued against positions or post as a post is not juridical person hence, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa has committed illegality by issuing summons against DGM Sail, M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines more so when such post undisputedly does not even exist. Thus, taking cognizance by not naming any person who was responsible for the alleged criminal act is certainly not sustainable in law."
Case Title: Nirakar Mahato V. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 84
The Jharkhand High Court has observed that there is no bar in law in examining an inimical, interested, or related witness by a party to support his case. A witness may be closely related to the victim or inimical to the accused but on that ground, his testimony cannot be treated as tainted, the Court said.
The division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Navneet Kumar, observed, “There is no bar in law in examining an inimical, interested or related witness by a party to support his case. A witness may be closely related to the victim or inimical to the accused but on that ground his testimony cannot be treated as tainted. When a crime is committed in the circumstances as described by the witnesses in the present case the family members and co-villagers are the natural and competent witnesses.”
Case Title: Paitar Mandal Vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 85
The Jharkhand High Court has observed that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is empowered to formulate any substantial question of law that arises between the parties, even if it was not included in the memorandum of the Second Appeal.
“Under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court may formulate any substantial question of law which arises between the parties even though the same has not been formulated in the memorandum of Second Appeal,” Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, presiding over the case observed.
Case Title: Diksha Kumari @ Disksha Kumari V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 86
In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court emphasized that bail once granted to an accused cannot be cancelled solely based on non-compliance with the terms of a compromise agreement. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the case, reiterated that bail can only be revoked if the accused violates the conditions of bail or impedes a fair trial.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, observed, “there is no allegation against the petitioner having committed any of the acts, deeds or things which could be a ground for cancellation of bail already granted to him as enumerated by this Court in the case of Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (supra). Bail once granted to an accused person cannot be cancelled unless he violates the condition of the bail or does any act, deed or thing to impede a fair trial of the case concerned. It is needless to mention that the petitioner seeks cancellation of the bail of the opposite party No.2 on the sole ground that he has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties.”
Case Title: Simant Saurav @ Simant Saunabh V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 87
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that convictions can be maintained based on the evidence provided by police personnel, even if they are victims of the crime.
Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava presiding over the case observed, “...the plea of petitioners about non examination of any independent witness cannot be sustained and there is no requirement of law that conviction cannot be maintained on the basis of evidence of police personnels, who are also victim of the crime.”
Case Title: Shrawan Kumar Das V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 88
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that pensionary benefits are a constitutional and fundamental right of employees, not a discretionary bounty of authorities. The Court expressed bewilderment at the withholding of retiral benefits from an employee whose dismissal order had been quashed by the appellate authority without any appeal or revision from the Department.
Justice SN Pathak presiding over the case, remarked, “This Court fails to understand that under which authority of law, the entire admitted retiral benefits of an employee can be withheld when the order of dismissal has been quashed and set aside by the appellate authority, that too when no appeal / revision has been preferred by the Department. The respondents are taking flimsy stand, which is not acceptable to this Court. This is yet another glaring example of delay and laches on the part of the respondents for not extending the retiral benefits.”
Case Title: Sanjay Kujur V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 89
The Jharkhand High Court has acquitted a man convicted of murder, ruling that a conviction cannot be based solely on the recovery of the murder weapon. The Court emphasised the necessity of corroborative evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The division bench comprising Justices Ananda Sen and Subhash Chand observed, “In our opinion a conviction cannot be based solely on the recovery of a murder weapon. There must be some corroborative evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Confessional statement leading to recovery of weapon, stand alone, cannot be a ground of conviction. There must be other credible corroborative evidence.”
Case title: Anita Devi V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 90
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that vehicles seized in connection with police cases need not be kept under open sky at police stations unless their presence is required for investigation purposes.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the case, emphasised this principle while addressing a petition concerning a seized motorcycle.
“Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the vehicles seized in connection with police cases need not be kept in the police stations under open sky unless its existence is required during the investigation of the case or other,” Justice Choudhary observed.
Case Title: Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. M/s Rites Ltd. and Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 91
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (JUVNL) challenging the writ court's order to appoint a sole arbitrator in its dispute with M/s Rites.
The Court emphasized that it is the High Court's duty to reject petitions or defenses based on purely technical grounds aimed at gaining an unfair advantage.
Case Title: Amir Mallick and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 92
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated the importance of dying declarations in criminal cases, emphasising that if there are inconsistencies between multiple dying declarations, the statement recorded before a Magistrate or higher official holds weightage.
The Division Bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Subhash Chand made this observation while hearing an appeal challenging a verdict of guilt and sentencing by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur, in a Session Trial.
Case Title: Doman Murmu @ Ramdhu Murmu Versus The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 93
The Jharkhand High Court has upheld a life imprisonment sentence handed to a man by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dumka, in a murder case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code while observing that in cases with direct evidence, the absence of the weapon used in the crime or its forensic examination does not undermine the prosecution's case.
The Division Bench of Justices Subhash Chand and Ananda Sen noted, “In case of a direct evidence, the production of the weapon used in the commission of the crime and not sending the same to FSL for examination will not be fatal to prosecution case and no adverse inference can be drawn.”
Case Title: Upendra Mahto @ Upendra Mehta vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 94
The Jharkhand High Court has acquitted a man booked in 2009 for committing unnatural sex and murder of a 10 years old boy, while ruling that his extra-judicial confession obtained through coercion is inadmissible as evidence.
The Division Bench of Justices Subhash Chand and Ananda Sen noted, “The extra judicial confession being not voluntary and was the result of coercion cannot be admissible in evidence. The extra judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence, unless and until, the same inspires the confidence of the Court to believe the same to be trustworthy, the same cannot be relied upon.”
Case Title: Sri Ram Sharma V. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 95
The Jharkhand High Court recently set aside the murder conviction of a man who caused the death of his uncle by giving a blow of hammer on his head, stating that 'culpable homicide' committed without premeditation in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, where the offender does not take 'undue advantage nor acts cruelly', does not constitute murder.
The Division Bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Subhash Chand concluded that the case falls within Exception (4) of Section 300 of IPC and is therefore covered under Section 304 Part-II of the Code which penalises culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death.
Case Title: Amar Yadav @ Amar Kumar V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 96
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that warrants, proclamations, and attachments can be issued against an accused unless there is an interim order of no-coercive measure issued by the court where the anticipatory bail application is filed. If such an interim order is absent and a process under Section 82 ofCrPC is issued, it renders the anticipatory bail application not maintainable.
In this case, the complainant alleged that the appellant and other accused went to his land and in order to dispossess him, the accused persons assaulted him and called him by his caste name. Consequently, a case was registered under Sections 323, 341, 504, 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant filed an appeal against the order rejecting his anticipatory bail, during pendency of which a proclamation was issued.
Case Title: Awadh Kishore Lal Vs The State of Jharkhand and Another
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 97
The Jharkhand High Court has quashed criminal proceedings in a case deemed maliciously filed, emphasising that when a case is filed with malicious intent and subsequently challenged in the High Court, it bears a greater responsibility to scrutinise the matter meticulously to prevent the wrongful prosecution of an innocent person.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi remarked, “There is no doubt that if a case is made out, the High Court is required to proceed with circumspection and with all care for quashing of the proceeding as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 but at the same time, if maliciously the case is filed and that is challenged in the High Court, the High Court is having more responsibility to examine the same with circumspection so that an innocent person may not be prosecuted in a criminal case.”
Case Title: Shiva Kumar Deora vs Union of India And Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 98
The Jharkhand High Court has held that GST officers should not require or coerce individuals summoned under GST to give statements after office hours.
The division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Navneet Kumar emphasized, “In our opinion, the proper officer under the GST should not be requiring or forcing or coercing a person so summoned to give statement after the office hours.”
Case Title: M/s Smart Chip Private Limited vs Jharkhand State Cooperative Bank Limited
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 100
The Jharkhand High Court bench of Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar has held that the court in Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not required to look beyond except existence of the arbitration clause at this stage; 'no more no less'.
Section 11 of the Arbitration Act pertains to the appointment of arbitrators. It outlines the procedure for the appointment of arbitrators in cases where parties to an arbitration agreement are unable to agree on the selection of an arbitrator or arbitrator.
Case Title: Sandeep Kumar Tripathy @ Sandeep Tripathy vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 101
The Jharkhand High Court has made it clear that there is no prescribed format for recording a dying declaration and it may be either oral or in writing, however, any Court relying on it must ensure that it was made by the declarant in a 'fit state of mind'.
A division bench comprising Justices Subhash Chand and Ananda Sen observed, “It is the settled law that the dying declaration may be oral or in writing. But while relying dying declaration the Court has to satisfy whether it was made in fit state of mind. There is no prescribed format of recording the dying declaration. If the dying declaration is the oral and is very terse that may also inspires the confidence in regard its truthfulness.”
Case Title: Rajendra Prasad Sahu V. State of Jharkhand and Others
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 102
The Jharkhand High Court has ordered the State government to pay ₹5 lakhs in compensation for illegally demolishing a privately owned building that housed five shops. Additionally, the Court has directed the State to pay ₹25,000 for the mental pain and agony suffered by the shop owner due to the State's high-handed actions.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, who presided over the case, stated, “It is established that in such a circumstance the action of the authority in demolishing the shops is nothing but totally illegal, arbitrary and whimsical. It is well settled that the State or its authorities are subject to "etat de droit", i.e. the State is submitted to the law which implies that all actions of the State or its authority and officials must be carried out subject to the constitution and within the limits set by the law.”
Case Title: Sri Hemant Soren Vs The Directorate Of Enforcement Represented Thr Its Assistant Director Ranchi Zonal Office
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 103
The Jharkhand High Court granted bail to former Chief Minister Hemant Soren on Friday in connection with an alleged land scam case. The verdict follows the court's decision to reserve the order on June 13 regarding Soren's bail application.
The ruling was made by a single bench led by Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay. Representing Soren, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora claimed that the charges against him were politically motivated and baseless. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, also argued for Soren's bail, asserting that the ED falsely implicated him.