Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 9-19]Pratima Devi v Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 9M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v Anant Kumar Singh 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 10Vinod Shankar Jha vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 11Kunwar Ganjhu v Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 12Mithilesh Kumar Saw @ Mithlesh Saw & ors. vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 9-19]
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
Judgements/Orders This Week
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.”
Other Developments
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Elevation Of One Judicial Officer As Jharkhand High Court Judge
On Thursday, the Supreme Court collegium recommended the appointment of Arun Kumar Rai, a judicial officer, as a judge of the Jharkhand High Court. The recommendation, originally made by the Jharkhand High Court collegium in September of the previous year, underwent scrutiny by the only consulting judge in the Supreme Court familiar with Jharkhand High Court matters. The candidate's suitability was assessed, considering all the relevant material, including the report from the Judgment Assessment Committee.
The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the name of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Additional Judge, for appointment as a permanent Judge of the High Court of Jharkhand. Justice Srivastava was sworn in as the Additional Judge of the Jharkhand High Court in June 2022.