Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 142-146]Navin Kumar Sinha & Anr vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 142Mahesh Minz & Ors vs The State of Jharkhand & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 143Sita Kumari vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 144Somen Chatterjee vs State of Jharkhand and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 145Munga Devi and ors. vs Kamla Devi...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 142-146]
Navin Kumar Sinha & Anr vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 142
Mahesh Minz & Ors vs The State of Jharkhand & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 143
Sita Kumari vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 144
Somen Chatterjee vs State of Jharkhand and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 145
Munga Devi and ors. vs Kamla Devi 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 146
Judgements/Orders This Week
Case Title: Navin Kumar Sinha & Anr vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 142
The Jharkhand High Court in a recent ruling has ruled that if criminality is not established, allowing the continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “Looking into the pendency of two partition suits filed by one of the co-sharer of the property, in which, the petitioners and the complainant are also parties in those partition suits, it appears that for civil wrong, criminal proceeding has been initiated against the petitioners.”
Case Title: Mahesh Minz & Ors vs The State of Jharkhand & Anr
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 143
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that renting a locker at a bank does not establish a bailment relationship between the locker hirer and the bank.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “In view of the above, it appears that the locker is the nature of agreement, in view of that the hiring agreement cannot be equated with the bailment. Furthermore the said operation of the locker was the agreement and the same can be terminated by a person in his favour the said locker is provided.”
Case Title: Sita Kumari vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 144
In a recent judgment, the High Court of Jharkhand ruled in favor of the married daughter of a deceased employee, allowing her to file an application for compassionate appointment. The court emphasized the primary objective of compassionate appointments, which is to provide support to bereaved families, preventing them from facing destitution.
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “Principles and object of compassionate appointment is to provide means of sustenance to the bereaved family on the loss of the sole bread earner, to prevent the family from vagrancy and destitution.”
Case Title: Somen Chatterjee vs State of Jharkhand and Anr
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 145
In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a petitioner after police exoneration, emphasizing the importance of thorough investigation before initiating legal action against an accused.
The petitioner had sought the quashing of criminal proceedings, including the order taking cognizance, related to a case pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Dhanbad. The charges involved offenses under Section 341/342/406/506/119/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4/5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Case Title: Munga Devi and ors. vs Kamla Devi
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 146
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that an order passed on an application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC is not appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC; instead, it is considered a revisable order. For context, Order XXII Rule 3 CPC deals with the Procedure in case of the death of one of several plaintiffs or of the sole plaintiff. Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC deals with the right to appeal against certain orders.