Jharkhand High Court Annual Roundup 2023 [Citations 1 - 88]

The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Tata Steel Limited & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 1

M/s Om Prakash Kashyap Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 2

Prem Prakash vs. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 3

Pushpa Dave @ Devi and Ors. v. Sri Udai Kumar Rajgarhia & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 4

M/s Subhash Singh Choudhary Versus The State of Jharkhand Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 5

Mrs. Sangita Devi and Ors. v. Union of India through General Manager, SER 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 6

Dr. Nishkant Dubey and others vs. The State of Jharkhand and others along with connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 7

M/s Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MESCO Steel Ltd.) vs. State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 8

Dr. Vijay Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 9

M/s. Sai Traders versus The State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 10

Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 11

Central Coalfields Ltd vs. M/s Rajdhani Carriers Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 12

Aseem Sood @ Asim Sud vs. State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 13

Nakul Bera @ Nakul Chandra Bera 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 14

K.N. Shastri and Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 15

Yogendra Saw @ Yogendra Sao and Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 16

Ajit Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 17

Babita Devi and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 18

Sunil Shah vs. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 19

M/s ESL Steel Limited Versus Principal Commissioner 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 20

M/s ESL Steel Limited v. Ispat Carriers Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 21

Umesh Kumar and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 22

Abhay Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand along with connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 23

Rajeev Jhawar Versus Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 24

Atibir Industries Company Limited vs. Central Coalfields Limited and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 25

Rahul Gandhi vs. The State of Jharkhand and one Another 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 26

Court on its own Motion Versus Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand and others 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 27

The State of Jharkhand and Others vs. M/s Flowmore Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 28

Jiramani Devi vs. State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 29

Bijay Hansda vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 30

Krishna Kabir vs. The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 31

Rajendra Institute of Medical Science (RIMS) vs Ranjan Kumar Singh and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 32

M/s A.M. Enterprises and Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 33

Pralay Pal vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 34

Abhay Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 35

Pradeep Yadav vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 36

Sanjeev Kumar Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 37

Society for Preservation of Tribal Culture and Natural Beauty v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 38

Dharampal Satyapal Limited & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 39

Manga Singh vs. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 40

Pralay Pal vs. The State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 41

M/s. Tata Steel Limited vs Union of India and Others2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 42

Abhishek Kumar Paul vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 43

RM vs. The State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 44

Pooja Giri vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others LiveLaw (Jha) 45

Software Freedom Law Center, India vs The State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 46

Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Limited and Other vs The State of Jharkhand and Another 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 47

Nayan Prakash Singh @ Narayan Prakash Singh and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 48

Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Limited and Other vs The State of Jharkhand and Another 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 49

Nayan Prakash Singh @ Narayan Prakash Singh and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 50

Propertymen Realty Pvt. Ltd and Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 51

Rahul Kumar Rai vs. The State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 52

Kuldeep Kumar Mahto vs. The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 53

Janeya Sinke @ Jane vs The State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 54

The State Project Director v. National Printers, LPA No. 505 of 2019 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 55

Pinaki Das vs The State of Jharkhand 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 56

Pratul Shahdeo @ Pratul Nath Shahdev vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 57

Anil Saw vs The State of Jharkhand LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 58

Adhunik Power & Natural Resources Ltd. Versus Central Coalfields Limited 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 59

Rajeev Kumar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 60

Anil Saw vs The State of Jharkhand 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 61

The State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Binod Kumar Lal and Others 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 62

P.N. Pathak @ Pradip Narayan Pathak and Another vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 63

Niraj Kathuria vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 64

Umesh Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 65

PCIT Versus Manoj Kapoor 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 66

Rungta Mines Limited Versus State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 67

Pramod Shankar Dayal vs. The State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 68

Beldih Club Jamshedpur vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 69

M/s Amar Saw Mill v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 70

Subodh Bara Babu @ Subodh Kumar Yadav vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 71

Devendra Prasad Yadav v. Jharkhand Gramin Bank and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 72

M/s LMB Sons Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 73

M/s Chotanagpur Diocesson Trust Asson. Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 74

State through informant Sadhu Rai vs Mithu Rai and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 75

Suresh Ram vs. The Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 76

Dr. Kumari Sandhya @ Kumari Sandhya v. State of Jharkhand & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 77

Rakesh Rajput and another vs. The State of Jharkhand and another 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 78

Upendra Nath Mandal vs. The Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 79

Munga Devi and ors. vs Kamla Devi 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 80

Chandan vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 81

Nawal Kumar Kanodia @ Nawal Kanodia vs The State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 82

Central Coalfields Limited vs union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 83

Mayank Singh Thakur @ Mayank Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 84

Navin Kumar Sinha & Anr vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 85

Mahesh Minz & Ors vs The State of Jharkhand & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 86

Sita Kumari vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 87

Somen Chatterjee vs State of Jharkhand and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 88

Judgements / Orders

Mining Lease Of 999 Years Violates 'Rule Against Perpetuity' And Shall Be Void Being Against Public Policy: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Tata Steel Limited & Anr.

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 1

The Jharkhand High Court has observed that a mining lease of 999 years amounts to a leave for perpetuity, which is opposed to public policy and is void.

A division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Ratnaker Bhengra observed, “A period of Nine Hundred and Ninety-Nine years may be construed a period in perpetuity. It may also be considered an indefinite period and a mining lease for an indefinite period shall be void being against the public policy. The word “perpetuity” simply means indefinite period. The “rule against perpetuity” is applied to prevent property interests from being tied up for generation after generation after the death of lessor, trustor etc. The “rule against perpetuity” aims at providing benefits accruing from property to the future generation and therefore this rule takes exception to creation of future remote interest. The philosophy behind this rule seems to be that if future remote interests are created in the property the society will be deprived of any benefit arising out of that property. Because it is important to ensure free circulation of property both for trade and commerce as well as for betterment of the property, the policy of law is to prevent the creation of perpetuity.”

Benefit Under SVLDRS Scheme Cant Be Denied Based On Dept. Decision To File Appeal: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Om Prakash Kashyap Versus UOI

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 2

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the benefit under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS scheme), cannot be denied by the designated committee for the reason that the department has decided to file an appeal against the order.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the Designated Committee traveled beyond the purview of the Scheme and acted in a wholly illegal and arbitrary manner by denying the benefit of the Scheme to the petitioner. It appears that the benefit of the scheme has been extended from December 31, 2019, to January 15, 2020. Thus, a declarant was entitled to avail himself of the scheme up to January 15, 2020, and, admittedly, the petitioner filed its declaration in Form SVLDRS-1 before the expiration of the period.

'Prosecution Story Reminds One Of A Crime Thriller': Jharkhand High Court Denies Bail To CM's Alleged Aide In Illegal Mining Case

Case title - Prem Prakash vs. Union of India

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 3

Denying bail to an alleged aide of Jharkhand's sitting Chief Minister Hemant Soren in connection with an illegal mining case, the High Court recently said that the story of the prosecution (ED) "reminds one of a crime thriller, where the state withers and the crime cartels with political connection, clash for natural resources of the state".

The bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed thus while denying bail to Prem Prakash who was arrested by ED in August last year on account of his alleged involvement in activities related to Money Laundering linked with illegal mining and its transportation activities.

Can't Condone Delay If Applicant Fails To Show 'Sufficient Cause' For The Delay: Jharkhand High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Pushpa Dave @ Devi and Ors. v. Sri Udai Kumar Rajgarhia & Ors.

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 4

The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that the court should not allow an application for condonation of delay until and unless the applicant satisfies the court that he was prevented by any 'sufficient cause' from prosecuting the case.

While dismissing the second appeal, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed: “The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The Court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover the ulterior purpose.”

Jharkhand High Court Allows Migration Of The TDS Amount Under GST

Case Title: M/s Subhash Singh Choudhary Versus The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 5

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the unadjusted TDS amount has to be treated as an input tax credit amount and is required to be carried forward in the next succeeding months.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the unadjusted TDS amount would have been otherwise refundable to the petitioners if it were not allowed to be carried forward as excess input tax credit in the statutory format of a quarterly return (Form JVAT 200).

[S.123 Railways Act] Death After Assault By Railway Police For Protesting Wife's Molestation In Train Is 'Untoward Incident': Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Mrs. Sangita Devi and Ors. v. Union of India

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 6

The Jharkhand High Court on Thursday ordered Rs. 4 lakh compensation under Railways Act in favour of a widow, who lost her husband in an assault by the Railway Police personnel during train journey after he protested her molestation by the said personnel.

While setting aside the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal which dismissed the claim of the petitioner, the single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that the incident would amount to an 'untoward incident' under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act and thus, the widow would be entitled to compensation under Section 124A of the Act.

'FIR Lodged Malafidely': Jharkhand High Court Quashes Case Against MPs Nishikant Dubey, Manoj Tiwari In Deoghar Airport Case

Case title - Dr. Nishkant Dubey and others vs. The State of Jharkhand and others along with connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 7

The Jharkhand High Court on Monday quashed the FIR lodged last year against MPs Nishikant Dubey, and Manoj Tiwari on the allegations of forcibly entering the Air Traffic Control (ATC) office in Deoghar and pressurizing the personnel to grant clearance to their chartered flight to take off from the airport. Terming the FIR to be 'Malafide' and observing that allowing the case to continue will lead “to abuse of process of law”, the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi granted relief to Dubey, his two sons, Tiwari, and others including the Airport Director, several workers of BJP.

Using Criminal Prosecution To Extract Dues For Which A Civil Remedy Is Available Is Unacceptable: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MESCO Steel Ltd.) vs. State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 8

A bench comprising Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary of the Jharkhand High Court, while allowing a criminal miscellaneous petition, has recently ruled that criminal prosecution, in any case, cannot be permitted as an arm twisting measure to settle and extract dues for which efficacious civil remedy is available.

In this case, the Criminal miscellaneous petition was preferred for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding and the order passed by the J. M. 1st Class, Jamshedpur whereby summons were issued against the petitioners after finding a prima facie case under Sections 420, 406 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Can't Allow Protest Petition When Finding Of Expert Committee In Medical Negligence Case Is In Favour Of Doctor: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Dr. Vijay Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand Cr.M.P. No. 588 of 2013

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 9

The Jharkhand High Court has held that proceeding further on a protest petition when the finding of the expert committee constituted in a medical negligence case is in favour of the doctor, amounts to abuse of process of law.

The court passed the above order in a criminal miscellaneous petition that was filed to quash the entire criminal proceeding, including the order taking cognizance passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Sahibganj in connection with a case whereby cognizance had been taken under section 304-A read with section 34 of the IPC against the petitioner-doctor.

Show Cause Notice Specifying Grounds For Proposed Action Is Mandatory Before Passing Blacklisting Order: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s. Sai Traders versus The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 10

The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the state prison department's decision to blacklist a trader from supplying any food material to the Divisional Jail, Lohardaga, for five years for being violative of natural justice. Sai Traders had allegedly failed to comply with an official order to supply food in the jail during the lockdown period in 2020.

Justice Rajesh Shankar said the proposed punishment of blacklisting was not communicated to the petitioner and it was only called upon to explain as to why the food materials were not being supplied by it.

Resolution Professional Under IBC Will Come Within Meaning Of 'Public Servant' Under Prevention Of Corruption Act: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 11

A recent ruling of the Jharkhand High Court has made it clear that a Resolution Professional will be considered a public servant under both sections 2(c)(v) and (viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), because his office entails the performance of functions that are in the nature of public duty.

A bench comprising Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary passed the above ruling while rejecting the petition praying for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding instituted against him, as well as the FIR registered for the offence under Section 7 (Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act) of the PC Act.

Deliberate Departure From Terms Of Contract May Tantamount To A Malafide Action By Arbitrator: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Central Coalfields Ltd vs. M/s Rajdhani Carriers Pvt Ltd

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 12

The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that the arbitrator derives authority from the contract and thus, the award passed by him in manifest disregard to the terms of the contract would be arbitrary in nature. The bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary remarked that deliberate departure from the contract amounts not only to manifest disregard of its authority or misconduct on the part of the arbitrator, but it may also tantamount to a malafide action.

No Vicarious Liability Of Company Managers When Their Role Not Disclosed In Complaint Petition: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Aseem Sood @ Asim Sud vs. State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 13

The Jharkhand High Court has recently held that vicarious liability cannot be imposed against an accused-Manager of the company when his role has not been mentioned in the complaint petition, and it has not been disclosed during the solemn affirmation or by the enquiry witnesses.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi made the observation while allowing a criminal writ petition praying for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur under sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

S.427 CrPC | Sentences Imposed On Habitual Offender In Separate Trials Can't Run Concurrently Without Considering Gravity: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: In Re : Nakul Bera @ Nakul Chandra Bera

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 14

While disposing of a revision petition, a division bench of the Jharkhand High Court has recently held that sentences in separate trials involving different offences and victims cannot run concurrently without considering the gravity of those offences and their impact on the society.

The division bench comprising Justices Ajay Kumar Gupta and Joymalya Bagchi observed,

“Sentences awarded in these trials cannot be directed to run concurrently under section 427(1) Cr.P.C. without considering the gravity and nature of the offence, maximum punishment that may be awarded upon conviction and the impact of such offence on society including possibility of re-offending.”

There Is No Exception To Section 202 CrPC; Mandatory Even When Govt Is Complainant: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: K.N. Shastri and Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 15

The Jharkhand High Court has held that a Magistrate is mandatorily required to postpone the issue of process before taking cognisance of a matter when the accused persons are situated in an area beyond its territorial jurisdiction, even when the government is the complainant.

“It is worth considering that there is no exception to the section 202 Cr.P.C, and in that view of the matter, even in the Government complaint case, section 202 Cr.P.C is mandatory and it is admitted that the petitioners are stationed at Delhi and seeing that the learned magistrate was required to follow the mandatory provision of section 202 Cr.PC which has been amended vide Amendment Act, 2005, making it mandatory to postpone the issue of process where the accused resides in an area beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned,” Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi said.

Rajya Sabha Polls 2016: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking CBI Probe In Case Against IPS Officer Anurag Gupta

Case Title: Yogendra Saw @ Yogendra Sao and Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 16

The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a petition seeking CBI probe in a 2016 case alleging that IPS officer Anurag Gupta and others interfered with the 2016 Rajya Sabha elections in the state. The case under section 171(b), (c), (e) and (f) of the IPC was registered on the complaint of Election Commission of India.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi said transfer of a case to CBI can happen only in extreme cases and that power of the High Court is not exercisable in cases "like the present where it may be debatable whether the direct accusation made in conjunction with the attendant circumstances, if proved to be true, is likely to result in conviction."

Jharkhand High Court Directs State To Pay Rs 5 Lakh Compensation To Man Who Spent 4 Months In Jail On False Murder And Rape Charges

Case Title: Ajit Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 17

The Jharkhand High Court has directed the State government to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakh to a man who spent four months in jail in 2014 in a false case of murder and rape. The victim was later found to be alive.

The petitioner, Ajit Kumar was detained for four months from February to July in 2021 in a false case of murder and rape under Sections 376(D), 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was alleged that he had raped and killed a woman and then burnt her body.

Jharkhand High Court Directs State To Grant 5 Lakh Compensation To Widow Of Custodial Death Victim

Case Title: Babita Devi and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 18

The Jharkhand High Court has directed the State Government to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 lakh to the widow of Umesh Singh, who died in police custody in 2015. The court also ordered the State to take departmental action against the police officers involved in the matter.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi said it is a "proved case" of police brutality, and questioned why the police department has not departmentally proceeded against the erring police officials, even though the CID has submitted a report exonerating them.

Section 205 CrPC Also Applicable In Cases Before Special Judges Conducting Trials Under Specific Statutes: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Sunil Shah vs. Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 19

Rejecting Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI)'s contention that a plea under Section 205 of CrPC is not maintainable before a Special Judge, the Jharkhand High Court granted relief to an accused in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act and exempted him from personal appearance before the trial court.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Kumar had earlier argued that Section 205 of CrPC is applicable only in trials before judicial magistrate.

"Section 205 of Cr.P.C. power is not there in the Special Judge who is conducting trial as a Special Judge under the various provision of Special statute... the entire Cr.P.C. is not applicable with regard to Special Judge who is conducting the trial and in that view of the matter section 205 of Cr.P.C petition itself was not maintainable before the Special Judge," Kumar argued before the court.

Jharkhand High Court Rejects ESL Steel's ITC Claim Prior To The Approval Of The Resolution Plan By NCLT

Case Title: M/s ESL Steel Limited Versus Principal Commissioner

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 20

The Jharkhand High Court rejected ESL Steel's Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim prior to the approval of the resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the liability of the earlier management may not be shifted to the current management, but at the same time, the credit available to the earlier management will also not be available to the current management as the current management was not a taxpayer during the period of procurement of inputs or capital goods as availed in the TRAN-1 filed on November 30, 2012.

Objections U/S 36 Of The A&C Act Permissible Only On Issues Relating To Patent Or Inherent Lack Of Jurisdiction Of The Tribunal: Jharkhand High Court

Case Details: M/s ESL Steel Limited v. Ispat Carriers Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 21

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the objections under Section 36 of the A&C Act permissible only on issues relating to patent or inherent lack of jurisdiction of the tribunal.

The Bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary held that challenge to an arbitral award can only be on the grounds enshrined under Section 34 of the Act, nevertheless, it is permissible to raise objections under Section 47 of the CPC at the stage of enforcement of the award under section 36 of the Act if those objections pertain to the lack of jurisdiction of the tribunal to pass an award or when the award is non-est or a nullity in the eyes of the law. However, such a defect in the award must be apparent on the face of the record and not require any factual determination.

Section 498-A IPC Was Enacted To Punish Cruelty At Hands Of Husband Or His Relatives, It Is Now Being Misused: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Umesh Kumar and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 22

The Jharkhand High Court said that the Supreme Court and several high courts have observed the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to cruelty against woman by her husband or his relatives.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi said the Supreme Court on numerous occasions has previously expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A and the increasing tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial dispute without analyzing the long term ramifications of it.

Jamshedpur Communal Clash 2023| 'Can't Ascertain Which Community Was The Aggressor': High Court Grants Bail To 42 Accused

Case title - Abhay Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand along with connected matters

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 23

The Jharkhand High Court last week granted bail to 42 accused booked in connection with the April 2023 clashes which broke out between members of two communities in the State's Jamshedpur district over the alleged desecration of a religious flag.

The bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Subhash Chand found that none of the appellants were apprehended at the spot and the role assigned to the named accused and also the unknown persons was general and omnibus. The Court also added that at this stage it cannot be ascertained who was the aggressor between both the communities.

'Presence Of Stent Due To Heart Ailment Very Common In World, Cannot Be Ground Of Exemption Under Section 205 Of CrPC': Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Rajeev Jhawar Versus Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 24

The Jharkhand High Court, while upholding the order of a trial court, said that presence of a stent due to a heart ailment cannot be a ground for exemption under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) as the medical condition is common across the world.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held, “The petition under section 205 of Cr.P.C. meant for a bonafide person to abide by the law of the country not like this petitioner as he is already a flight risk. Moreover this petitioner is having some heart ailment wherein stunt has been put in his heart. Nowadays that is very common in the entire world and that cannot be ground of exemption under section 205 of Cr.P.C. Further the petitioner is a man of means and even if he is looking after his father, mother, he can make an alternative arrangement and that can not be a ground of 205 Cr.P.C.”

Jharkhand High Court Quashes Arbitrary Forfeiture Of Earnest Money By CCL, Orders Release

Case Title: Atibir Industries Company Limited vs. Central Coalfields Limited and Others

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 25

The Jharkhand High Court has taken a strong stance against the arbitrary cancellation of a contract and the subsequent forfeiture of earnest money by Central Coalfields Limited, a public sector coal supplier, and declared the forfeiture of earnest money by a public sector coal supplier as "indefensible" and "arbitrary."

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “It was not that the coal value had not been paid within the stipulated time. The only fault for which the purchase order was cancelled was not paying the amount through designated account. No opportunity, no notice to make amend and pay the amount through designated account was given. The coal was not supplied and the full coal value was returned only after the intervention of the writ Court. The petitioner was running a sponge iron factory and cannot be said to be a speculator.”

'Rahul Gandhi Is Sitting MP, Busy With Attending Parliament': Jharkhand HC While Exempting Personal Appearance In Modi Surname Defamation Case

Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs. The State of Jharkhand and one Another

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 26

The Jharkhand High Court on Wednesday exempted Congress leader Rahul Gandhi from personally appearing before a special Ranchi court that is hearing a defamation case related to the Modi surname remark he made before the Lok Sabha elections in 2019.

Gandhi had earlier been directed by the Ranchi MP-MLA court to appear in person in the defamation case.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, while placing reliance on Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Versus Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. & Ors., (2001) 7 SCC 401, said, “Thus, in view of the above ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the court comes to a conclusion that prima facie it appears that the petitioner is a sitting Member of Parliament and he is busy with other works including attending the Parliament Session. Further in para-15, the terms and condition for such exemption has been stated to be complied by the petitioner by way of filing the fresh affidavit before the learned court and in view of said statement, the trial will not hamper and the case will proceed and there is justification of allowing the said petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C.”

Jharkhand High Court Issues Directives Following Tragic Dhanbad High-Rise Fire Incident

Case Title: Court on its own Motion Versus Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand and others

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 27

The Jharkhand High Court has taken significant steps in response to the tragic high-rise fire incident that took place in Dhanbad district on January 31, 2023, which claimed multiple lives. Acting on the matter, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ananda Sen issued a set of directions aimed at ensuring the stringent implementation of fire safety measures across the State.

Labor Cess Inapplicable To Material Supply And Consultancy Charges: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: The State of Jharkhand and Others vs. M/s Flowmore Limited

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 28

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that Labor Cess should not be imposed on the supply of materials and consultancy charges for a contract that is different from civil works contracts. This decision came after the State appealed against a ruling made by a Single Judge Bench on June 13, 2022. The Single Judge Bench had stated that Labor Cess is not applicable to the supply of materials and consultancy charges for a contract that is distinct from civil works contracts.

2021 Police Firing: Jharkhand High Court Directs Fresh Probe Into Tribal's Death, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation To Widow

Case Title: Jiramani Devi vs. State of Jharkhand

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 29

The Jharkhand High Court has directed the state police to re-investigate the matter of Brahmadev Singh's killing, who was allegedly killed by security forces in Latehar district on the suspicion of being a Maoist in June, 2021. Apart from this, the court also directed to pay Rs 5 lakh as compensation to Singh's family. The above order came from the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi while hearing a petition filed by Singh's widow, Jiramani Devi, who had demanded a CBI probe into the matter.

Jharkhand High Court Orders CBI To Conduct Preliminary Inquiry Into Allegations Of Illegal Mining And Political Intimidation

Case Title: Bijay Hansda vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 30

The Jharkhand High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the illegal mining, and intimidation in Sahibganj district. The case involves serious charges against influential individuals linked to the illegal stone mining trade.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi asked the CBI to complete the preliminary inquiry and submit the report within a month while observing, “It goes without saying that such enquiry cannot be ordered as a matter of routine or merely because a party makes an allegation and if after considering the materials on records the Court concludes that such materials disclose that prima facie case calling for investigation by the C.B.I, the Court can pass necessary order and in light of that, several judgments have been discussed hereinabove and one of the celebrated decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the case of State of West Bengal and Others v. Committee on Protection of Democratic Rights and Others(supra).”

Jharkhand High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Alchemist Group Director In Financial Fraud Case

Case Title: Krishna Kabir vs. The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 31

The Jharkhand High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Krishna Kabir, the Director of the Alchemist Group, in connection with a case involving financial fraud and investor deception. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary was hearing a case that revolves around accusations of luring investors with false promises related to land bookings.

The matter has drawn significant attention due to the alleged embezzlement of funds and violation of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978.

Cancellation Of Entire Selection Process Unjustified If Irregularities Curable: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Rajendra Institute of Medical Science (RIMS) vs Ranjan Kumar Singh and Others

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 32

The Jharkhand High Court has recently issued a comprehensive list of directions regarding a contentious recruitment process at the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS).

The division bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar thereby modified the Single Judge's verdict and opined that scrapping the recruitment advertisement or the entire selection process for Grade-IV posts would unfairly penalise genuine candidates.

Jharkhand High Court Quashes Proceedings U/S 276B Against The Petitioner Who Failed To Deposit The TDS Amount

Case Title: M/s A.M. Enterprises and Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 33

The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against a petitioner who had been facing charges under Sections 276B and 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's firm had allegedly failed to deposit the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) amount with the Income Tax Department in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

The petitioner had filed a plea seeking the quashing of the criminal proceedings, contending that his firm had been unaware of the TDS requirement for the last quarter of the fiscal year.

Income Tax Act | Annulled Penalty Order Implies Absence Of Concealment, S.276C Proceedings Automatically Quashed: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Pralay Pal vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 34

The Jharkhand High Court has recently held that when a penalty order is set aside, it implies the absence of concealment of income, leading to the automatic quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi added that quashing the penalty order undermines the foundational basis for the criminal case, as criminal intent was deemed absent due to the annulment of the penalty proceedings.

Police Cannot Seize Immovable Property U/S 102 CrPC Without Court Order: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Abhay Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 35

The Jharkhand High Court recently held that the police cannot seize immovable property under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) without an order from a competent court of law. Relying on Nevada Properties Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Anr, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi ordered to unseal the premises of a factory owned by the petitioner who was accused of engaging in illegal coal trade.

'Sufficient Grounds To Proceed Trial': Jharkhand High Court Refuses To Discharge Congress MLA Pradeep Yadav In Sexual Harassment Case

Case Title: Pradeep Yadav vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 36

The Jharkhand High Court on Friday dismissed the criminal revision petition moved by Congress MLA Pradeep Yadav, who had sought the dismissal of a sexual harassment case brought against him by a woman. Yadav had challenged an order passed by Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, Dumka refusing to discharge him.

The bench of Justice Subhash Chand opined that the victim's reasons for the delay in lodging the FIR were well-founded, as she had been continuously subjected to criminal intimidation by Yadav, and his associates. It held, "In view of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the cumulative evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation i.e., oral as well as documentary and the settled propositions of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove, there are sufficient grounds to proceed trial against the accused. As such, the impugned order dated 2nd April, 2022 passed by the court below rejecting the discharge application needs no interference."

Provide Basic Facilities To Pilgrims At Maa Chhinnamastike Temple: Jharkhand High Court Issues Directions To District Admin

Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 37

In a noteworthy decision, the Jharkhand High Court has issued a set of directives aimed at enhancing the facilities for pilgrims visiting the revered Maa Chhinnamastike Temple in Rajrappa, Jharkhand. The court's decision follows a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a devoted petitioner who sought improvements in the temple's amenities.

The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ananda Sen observed, "Several devotees from different parts of the country visit this temple regularly and during festive seasons and on special occasions the visit of pilgrims multiplies by few folds. Many devotees take holy dip in the river Bhairavi and then offer their prayers to the Goddess. As this place is visited by large number of pilgrims from the entire country, it is necessary that the District Administration provides basic facilities to the pilgrims like washrooms, waiting halls, etc.”

"Custodian Of Art, Culture & Heritage": Jharkhand High Court Issues Directives For Protection Of Tagore Hill, 100 Yrs Old Structures

Case Title: Society for Preservation of Tribal Culture and Natural Beauty v. Archaeological Survey of India & Ors.

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 38

The Jharkhand High Court has issued a directive to both the State Government and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to take immediate measures for the preservation, protection, and maintenance of Tagore Hill, along with its iconic structures: "Brahmo Mandir," "Kusumtal," "Shanti Dham," and the "Samadhisthal."

Referring to the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act 1958, a Division Bench of Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ananda Sen observed, “Nowhere in these provisions, i.e., Section 4 or Section 2 read with Section 2(a) of the Act provides that an “ancient monument” should be of more than 100 years old from the date of promulgation of the Act. Further, Section 4 and the definition of “ancient monument” if read conjointly, will clarify that any structure or monument, which qualifies to be an “ancient monument” and is more than 100 years old, can be declared to be of national importance by the Central Government.

'Presence Of Magnesium Carbonate Itself Does Not Make A Food Article Prohibited': Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Dharampal Satyapal Limited & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors.

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 39

The Jharkhand High Court has delivered a crucial judgment regarding the presence of magnesium carbonate in food products, stating that it does not inherently make a food article prohibited under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act).

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ananda Sen observed, “...the respondents have taken a decision to ban certain Pan Masalas as on three consecutive years by three consecutive notifications to that effect on the ground that it contained Magnesium Carbonate. From the aforesaid analysis, we are of the opinion that presence of Magnesium Carbonate itself does not make a food article prohibited. An attempt has been made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State-respondents that nicotine was found in certain laboratory analysis.”

Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹8 Lakh Compensation To Man Falsely Accused In NDPS Case, Jailed For 8 Yrs

Case Title: Manga Singh vs. Union of India

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 40

The Jharkhand High Court has directed the Additional Director General of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Sub Zone, Ranchi to pay a compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs to a man who was falsely implicated in a NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) and remained in jail custody for about 8 years for a crime which he did not commit.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “In view of above and considering that it is an admitted position that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case and case for withdrawal has also been filed under section 321 of the Cr.P.C. by none other than the N.C.B. which was rejected that is the subject matter in criminal revision before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of F.I.R. N.C.B. Crime No.04/2015 (02-2015/16), corresponding to NDPS Special Case No.17/2015(N), pending in the court of learned A.J.C.-I, Ranchi including the impugned order dated 01.04.2016 are quashed”

Penalty Order Set Aside Leads To Automatic Quashing Of Prosecution Under Section 276C(1) Of Income Tax Act: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Pralay Pal vs. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 41

In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has held that once a penalty order is set aside, it will be presumed that there is no concealment of income, automatically leading to the quashing of prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, while delivering the judgment, emphasized, “In view of the above judgments, the Court comes to the conclusion that once penalty order is set aside, it will be presumed that there is no concealment and quashing of prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act is automatic. The petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer and to face criminal trial and the same cannot sustain in the eyes of law.”

Amendment In CGST Rule 89(4) To Have Prospective Effect: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s. Tata Steel Limited vs Union of India and Others

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 42

Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the explanation inserted in Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017, through Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, is not of a clarificatory nature and thus will be applied prospectively.

The above decision was reached in response to a petition where the refund claim of the petitioner was rejected due to the contention that, in processing refund claims related to exports, the lower of values indicated in the tax invoice and the shipping bill should be taken into account. In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition, asserting that the 2022 amendment to Rule 89(4) of CGST Rules, which introduced a comparison between values indicated in the tax invoice and the shipping bill, should have a prospective effect.

Married Woman Can't Claim Consent To Establish Physical Relations Outside Marriage Obtained On False Promise To Marry: Jharkhand HC Quashes Rape FIR

Case Title: Abhishek Kumar Paul vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another

LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 43

The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a rape case filed by a woman who was a married adult, noting that she was fully aware of the potential consequences of engaging in a physical relationship with another person.

The court ruled that the accused could not be deemed to have obtained her consent under false pretense, thus quashing the charges based on an alleged promise of marriage. Justice Subhash Chand observed, “...the victim was major since the very time when she came in contact with the accused and while during the love affairs of the victim with the accused Abhishek Kumar Pal at college time, the victim was major, while the accused was minor at that time being 2 years younger to the victim.”

Consensual Relationship Continuing For 6 Years, Not Rape: Jharkhand High Court Quashes Case For False Promise To Marry Widowed Sister-In-Law

Case Title: RM vs. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 44

The Jharkhand High Court has granted relief to a man accused of raping his widowed sister-in-law under pretext of false to marry her, asserting that prosecutrix was a married woman of legal age, was well aware of the consequences of her relationship with her brother-in-law.

Justice Subhash Chand observed that the evidence presented did not establish the victim's consent was obtained through fraud. “Admittedly, the victim was major and a married lady, she was very much aware in regard to sexual relations being established with her brother-in-law. The consent cannot be said to be obtained under misconception in view of Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code reason being that she had been continuously in establishing sexual relation with the petitioner for six years. Being a major and married lady, she was very much aware the consequences to establish sexual relation without getting married. From the allegations made in the FIR on their face do not indicate that the consent was obtained by playing fraud upon the victim.”

Jharkhand High Court has directed the state police to file a First Information Report (FIR) against its personnel accused of assaulting the relatives of Kamaldev Giri, a prominent Bajrang Dal leader who was tragically murdered in Chakradharpur last year.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that, “This is not a single case. There are many cases of such nature, which have been examined by this Court in several writ petitions and appropriate directions have also been issued. This is unfortunate that a citizen has been compelled to move before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for registration of the FIR and such a direction is already there in view of the judgment passed in Lalita Kumari (supra).”

Jharkhand High Court Orders FIR Against Police Personnel For Assault On Protesting Relatives Of Murdered Bajrang Dal Leader

Case Title: Pooja Giri vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 45

Jharkhand High Court has directed the state police to file a First Information Report (FIR) against its personnel accused of assaulting the relatives of Kamaldev Giri, a prominent Bajrang Dal leader who was tragically murdered in Chakradharpur last year.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that, “This is not a single case. There are many cases of such nature, which have been examined by this Court in several writ petitions and appropriate directions have also been issued. This is unfortunate that a citizen has been compelled to move before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for registration of the FIR and such a direction is already there in view of the judgment passed in Lalita Kumari (supra).”

Publish All Internet Suspension Orders Within 48 Hours : Jharkhand High Court Directs State Govt

Case Title: Software Freedom Law Center, India vs The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 46

The Jharkhand High Court while issuing a verdict in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by the Software Freedom Law Center, India, has directed the State Government to upload all previous orders pertaining to the suspension of internet services within 48 hours on the official website of the State Government.

Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ananda Sen held, “In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the suspension of internet services for the said periods by the State Government cannot be found fault with, however, the respondents should have notified the orders suspending the internet services in their web site at appropriate time as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anuradha Bhasin versus Union of India reported in (2020) 3 SCC 637.”

Criminality Cannot Be Fastened In Every Case For Mere Breach Of Contract: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Limited and Other vs The State of Jharkhand and Another

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 47

While observing that not every dispute should culminate in criminal charges, especially when the underlying issue is fundamentally civil in nature, such as a breach of contract, the Jharkhand High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a petitioner in a case that involved allegations under Sections 406, 420, 379, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “On the intervention of this Court, the appointment has been again offered to the complainant by the company, as has been discussed hereinabove, which suggests that opposite party no.2 is unnecessarily dragging this matter and if any case is made out against the petitioners i.e. civil in nature. Mere breach of contract and in every cases, criminality cannot be fastened upon the accused persons.”

SC/ST Act Designed To Safeguard Marginalized Communities, Not Score-Settling Persecution: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Nayan Prakash Singh @ Narayan Prakash Singh and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 48

The Jharkhand High Court has underscored the essence and purpose of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), emphasizing its role in safeguarding the interests of marginalized sections of society and warning against its misuse as a tool for settling personal scores.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the case, pointed out a contradiction in the statements made by the complainant and his wife regarding the alleged use of derogatory terms against the complainant. While the complainant claimed that the accused used the term 'Adivasi,' another witness stated that the term used was 'Harijan.' The Court stressed that the SC/ST Act is designed to protect marginalized sections of society and should not be misused for settling personal disputes.

Criminality Cannot Be Fastened In Every Case For Mere Breach Of Contract: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Limited and Other vs The State of Jharkhand and Another

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 49

While observing that not every dispute should culminate in criminal charges, especially when the underlying issue is fundamentally civil in nature, such as a breach of contract, the Jharkhand High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a petitioner in a case that involved allegations under Sections 406, 420, 379, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “On the intervention of this Court, the appointment has been again offered to the complainant by the company, as has been discussed hereinabove, which suggests that opposite party no.2 is unnecessarily dragging this matter and if any case is made out against the petitioners i.e. civil in nature. Mere breach of contract and in every cases, criminality cannot be fastened upon the accused persons.”

SC/ST Act Designed To Safeguard Marginalized Communities, Not Score-Settling Persecution: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Nayan Prakash Singh @ Narayan Prakash Singh and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 50

The Jharkhand High Court has underscored the essence and purpose of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), emphasizing its role in safeguarding the interests of marginalized sections of society and warning against its misuse as a tool for settling personal scores.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the case, pointed out a contradiction in the statements made by the complainant and his wife regarding the alleged use of derogatory terms against the complainant. While the complainant claimed that the accused used the term 'Adivasi,' another witness stated that the term used was 'Harijan.' The Court stressed that the SC/ST Act is designed to protect marginalized sections of society and should not be misused for settling personal disputes.

Ensure 18-Month Data Storage For CCTV Cameras In Police Stations: Jharkhand High Court Directs State

Case Title: Propertymen Realty Pvt. Ltd and Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 51

The Jharkhand High Court has issued a directive to the State government and the Director General of Police (DGP) to ensure that CCTV cameras installed in police stations retain data for a minimum of 18 months.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi directed, “the State of Jharkhand and the Director General of Police, Jharkhand are directed to ensure that CCTV cameras are installed in each and every police station. It shall be also ensured that no part of a Police Station is left uncovered and it must be installed at all entry and exit points, main gate of the police station, all lock-ups; all corridors; lobby / the reception area, all verandas / outhouses, Inspector's room, Sub- Inspector's room, areas outside the lock-up room; station hall, in front of the police station compound, outside (not inside) washrooms/toilets, Duty Officer's room, back part of the police station etc. and this shall be complied within three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. The State of Jharkhand and the Director General of Police, Jharkhand shall ensure that equipment installed must be able to the store data for 18 months.”

Does Not Behove A Judicial Magistrate To Pass Reckless Orders: Jharkhand High Court Cancels JMFC's Proclamation Order, Calls For Training

Case Title: Rahul Kumar Rai vs. The State of Jharkhand and Anr.

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 52

In a stern rebuke, the Jharkhand High Court has cancelled an order issued by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) of Ranchi Civil Court. The High Court expressed strong reservations, stating that the JMFC's order appeared to have circumvented the law, and further emphasized that JMFC lacked a fundamental understanding of legal principles, necessitating training.

Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary while criticizing the Magistrate, remarked, “Before parting, it is pertinent to mention here that it does not behove a Judicial Magistrate to pass such reckless orders throwing the law to the woods and thereby unnecessary enhancing the burden of this Court. The learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi is directed to impress upon Shri [name redacted], learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi not to pass such illegal orders without adhering to the provision of law and if required, Shri [name redacted], learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi be sent to Judicial Academy on Sundays to improve his basic knowledge of law.”

Non-Consensual Sexual Intercourse Constitutes Rape Irrespective Of Assurances Of Marriage : Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Kuldeep Kumar Mahto vs. The State of Jharkhand and Anr

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 53

The Jharkhand High Court has refused to discharge a man who allegedly obtained consent of the victim on the pretext of marriage but forcibly committed initial sexual intercourse with her.

Justice Subhash Chand observed, “As such from the very beginning he got the consent of the victim on the pretext of marriage. After assuring the victim to marry he came in courtship of the victim and for the first time on 21.09.2018 he forcibly committed rape of victim. As such it cannot be accepted that the offence of 375 which is punishable of under section 376 of I.P.C. is not made out against the petitioner.”

Family's Prestige At Stake In Rape Cases, Delay In Filing FIR Not Fatal To Prosecution If Proper Explanation Given: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Janeya Sinke @ Jane vs The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 54

The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that delay in lodging FIR in cases of rape, where the dignity and reputation of the family are on the line, should not be considered fatal to the prosecution's case.

Justice Subhash Chand observed, “Indeed, in case of a rape wherein the dignity and prestige of the family is at stake, the time is also taken in deciding whether to lodge the F.I.R. or not. As such delay in lodging F.I.R. in rape case cannot fatal to prosecution if there is cogent and trustworthy evidence.”

'Ingredients Of SC/ST Act Absent': Jharkhand High Court Quashes FIR And Criminal Proceedings Against BJP Leader Pratul Shahdeo

Case Title: Pratul Shahdeo @ Pratul Nath Shahdev vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 55

The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Pratul Shahdev for allegedly abusing his former driver. Shahdev was booked under Sections 341, 342, 323, 325, 307 of the Indian Penal code and 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

It was alleged that he forcibly took away the car keys from his driver Mantu Kumar, locked the vehicle, and physically assaulted Kumar, causing injuries.

Assesse Failed To Appear Before Adjudicating Authority, No Violation Of Natural Justice: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Rajeev Kumar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 56

In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a proprietorship firm engaged in civil contract work, challenging an Order-in-Original (OIO) passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central GST & CX, Ranchi. The noted that the Assessee had been given ample opportunities to appear before the adjudicating authority. The court also highlighted that letters of personal hearing were sent to the Assessee at the address provided in their GST registration, as well as through email, however, these attempts were futile as the letters were returned undelivered and the Assessee did not respond to the emails.

Former Ranchi Deputy Commissioner's Bail Plea Rejected By Jharkhand High Court In Army Land Sale Case

Case Title: Chhavi Ranjan vs Union of India

LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 57

The Jharkhand High Court last week rejected a bail petition of former Ranchi Deputy Commissioner, Chhavi Ranjan in the army land sale case. The former Deputy Commissioner had moved the high court seeking his release on the grounds of non-submission of the charge sheet within the stipulated time.

However, the court held that there was no irregularity on the part of the investigating agency in concluding the probe, as the charge sheet had already been filed, and hence, there was no valid ground for bail based on this argument.

No Reference Of Sexual Assault In Victim's Statement U/S 164 CrPC: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail To POCSO Accused

Case Title: Anil Saw vs The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 58

The Jharkhand High Court recently granted bail to an accused in a POCSO case stating that no evidence of sexual assault was found in the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.

The division bench comprising Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar observed, "It appears from the record that the statement of the girl, immediately after recovery, was recorded before the Magistrate. We after going through the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. has found that there is no reference of commission of sexual assault. However, in course of trial, the victim, who has been examined as P.W. 1, on the Court query has deposed that she was subjected to sexual assault 2-3 times."

Wrong Collection Of TCS On Purchase Of Coal For Generation Of Power: Jharkhand High Court Directs Refund

Case Title: Adhunik Power & Natural Resources Ltd. Versus Central Coalfields Limited

LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 59

The Jharkhand High Court has directed the Tax Collected as Source (TCS) refund wrongfully collected despite verifying purchase of coal was used for generation of power. The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the root cause lies in the illegality committed by the Revenue in compelling Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) in effecting TCS qua the transactions of purchase of coal which according to the petitioner was genuinely used in generation of power. Such TCS was affected by Respondent CCL even though appropriate Form 27C was issued by the Petitioner with a verification that the goods so purchased would be used for the purposes of generation of power.

Assesse Failed To Appear Before Adjudicating Authority, No Violation Of Natural Justice: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Rajeev Kumar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 60

In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a proprietorship firm engaged in civil contract work, challenging an Order-in-Original (OIO) passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central GST & CX, Ranchi.

The noted that the Assessee had been given ample opportunities to appear before the adjudicating authority. The court also highlighted that letters of personal hearing were sent to the Assessee at the address provided in their GST registration, as well as through email, however, these attempts were futile as the letters were returned undelivered and the Assessee did not respond to the emails.

No Reference Of Sexual Assault In Victim's Statement U/S 164 CrPC: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail To POCSO Accused

Case Title: Anil Saw vs The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 61

The Jharkhand High Court recently granted bail to an accused in a POCSO case stating that no evidence of sexual assault was found in the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.

The division bench comprising Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar observed, "It appears from the record that the statement of the girl, immediately after recovery, was recorded before the Magistrate. We after going through the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. has found that there is no reference of commission of sexual assault. However, in course of trial, the victim, who has been examined as P.W. 1, on the Court query has deposed that she was subjected to sexual assault 2-3 times."

Can't Deny Medical Reimbursement By Discriminating Between Indoor Patient And Outdoor Patient: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: The State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Binod Kumar Lal and Others

LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 62

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the determination of whether a patient should be categorized as "indoor" or "outdoor" depends on the expert judgment of the attending doctors at the respective hospital. The Court has further emphasized that if the medical professionals decide to provide treatment without hospitalizing the patient as an "indoor patient," then denying reimbursement solely based on the treatment being categorized as that of an "outdoor patient" is not justifiable, and such a distinction in treatment expenditure cannot be considered a reasonable classification.

Jharkhand HC Rejects Claim Over Protected Forest Land, Says Title Plea Insufficient For Immunity From Prosecution Sans Substantiated Document Evidence

Case Title: P.N. Pathak @ Pradip Narayan Pathak and Another vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 63

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that merely asserting a claim of ownership is insufficient to secure protection from prosecution for encroachment of protected forest land, unless this claim is substantiated by a title document that can reasonably support the petitioner's legal right to the property in question.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “The proprietary title can devolve by a method known to law such as inheritance, testamentary succession, registered sale deed or gift deed which needs to be specifically pleaded and proved. The source of title along with the chain of title needs to be disclosed with certainty. It is a trite law that no one transfers a better title than he himself has.”

Maintenance Obligations Should Not Burden A Husband To The Point Of Marriage Becoming A Punishment: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Niraj Kathuria vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 64

While revising the maintenance amount awarded to a woman in a matrimonial dispute, the Jharkhand High Court has opined that while it is the husband's moral obligation to provide maintenance to his wife, ensuring she can maintain a lifestyle similar to that of their matrimonial home, this does not justify burdening the husband to the extent that the marriage becomes a punishment for him.

Justice Subhash Chand observed, “Certainly, it is moral duty of the husband to pay maintenance to her wife so that she may also reside in the same status as would have been in matrimonial house; but it does not mean to squeeze milk from the husband that the marriage becomes felony for the husband.”

Jharkhand High Court Asks State Govt To Reevaluate Application For Premature Release Of Life Convict Serving Sentence Since Over 26 Yrs

Case Title: Umesh Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 65

The Jharkhand High Court, in a recent ruling, has directed the State Government to reevaluate the application for premature release filed by a petitioner who had been serving a life sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and had been in custody for more than 26 years.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “In the case in hand, the case of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the learned Presiding Judge has not given opinion in favour of the petitioner and the said opinion has already been quoted hereinabove. Looking into the opinion given by the Presiding Judge, it appears that he has not fulfilled the guidelines which had been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naskar (supra). These guidelines include: (i) whether the offence affects the society at large; (ii) the probability of the crime being repeated; (iii) the potential of the convict to commit crimes in future; (iv) if any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the convict in prison; and (v) the socio-economic condition of the convict's family.”

Section 234B Interest Has To Be Charged On The Assessed Income And Not On The Returned Income: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: PCIT Versus Manoj Kapoor

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 66

The Jharkhand High Court has held that interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act has to be charged on the assessed income and not on the returned income.

The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that, as per Section 234B, interest has to be charged on an amount equal to the assessed tax or, as the case may be, on the amount by which the advance tax paid as aforesaid falls short of the assessed tax. The term “assessed tax” has been defined in Explanation 1 of Section 234B (1). As per Explanation 1, “assessed tax” means the tax on the total income determined under sub-Section (1) of Section 143, and where a regular assessment is made, the tax on the total income determined under such a regular assessment is reduced by the amount provided in Explanation-I to Section 234B. Therefore, the interest under Section 234B has to be charged on the assessed income and not on the returned income of an assessee.

There Should Be Finality To Assessment, Can't Have Repeated Reassessment Proceeding On The Dictate Of Audit Party: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Rungta Mines Limited Versus State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 67

The Jharkhand High Court has held that if the assessing authority is allowed to initiate repeated re-assessment proceedings against an assessee merely on the dictate of the audit party, there would not be finality of assessment. The assessee would have a sword of Damocles hanging over it in perpetuity.

The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that, as far as Sections 42(1) and 42(2) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act (JVAT Act) are concerned, the Legislature has deliberately inserted the non-obstante clause extending period of limitation, but the Legislature has not extended the period of limitation pursuant to an audit objection under Section 42(3).

Directors' Resignations Does Not Automatically Absolve Them Of Legal Responsibility For Dishonour Of Cheque Signed By Them: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Pramod Shankar Dayal vs. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 68

In a recent judgment, the Jharkhand High Court ruled against quashing criminal proceedings in a cheque dishonour case, emphasizing that directors' resignations from a company do not automatically absolve them of legal responsibilities particularly when the cheque was signed by them.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, "Looking into sub-section 2 of Section 141 of N.I. Act prima facie it appears that when the signature itself of these petitioners in the cheque they are deemed to be guilty of that offence and that can be only appreciated in trial. Further the petitioners have not disputed their signatures and the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners are required to be proved by leading evidence."

Establishments Under Fold Of ESI Act Obliged To Make Contributions Even If Number Of Employees Fall Below Specified Limit: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Beldih Club Jamshedpur vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 69

The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that if an organization is covered under the Employees' State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948, the number of employees working there is irrelevant, and such establishments are obligated to deposit employee subscriptions to contribute to the ESI fund. This would ensure the fulfillment of the Act's purpose, which is to provide beneficial measures in cases of sickness, maternity, employment injuries, and related matters, the Court said.

The Division Bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar emphasized, “The basic intent and object of the Act, 1948 is to introduce a health insurance for industrial worker for the purpose of providing certain benefit in the event of sickness, maternity and employment injury to all factories, including factories belonging to the Government other than seasonal factories. It was decided that there will be insurance fund which will be mainly derived from the contribution from employers and workmen. The contributions payable in respect of each employees will be based on the average wages which shall be in first instance payable by the employer.”

Indian Forest Act | Pending Criminal Case Does Not Halt Forest Authority's Right To Confiscate Wood Logs, Revoke Licenses: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Amar Saw Mill v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 70

In a recent case where a Writ Petition was filed to challenge the revocation of a sawmill license, the Jharkhand High Court said the competent authority under the Bihar Saw Mills Act, 1990 is empowered to revoke a license and confiscate timber when a licensee is unable to provide a valid explanation for unaccounted wood, even if the licensee is simultaneously facing a criminal case related to the illegal transportation of wood without the required documentation.

Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, while placing reliance on the Apex Court's judgement in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh reported in (2020) 12 SCC 733, reiterated “This Court after applying the said principle herein which is para materia to the confiscation proceeding as available under the Indian Forest Act wherein also apart from the criminal prosecution the power of dealing with the lisecne is also vested as would appear from the provision of Section 52 (5) of the Indian Forest Act.”

Police Must Enquire Into Matter Before Registering FIR Against Public Servant Accused Of Offence Committed In Discharge Of Official Duty: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: Subodh Bara Babu @ Subodh Kumar Yadav vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 71

In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court emphasized the duty of police officers to conduct thorough inquiries before registering First Information Reports (FIR) against public servants accused of offenses committed during the discharge of their official duties.

Justice Subhash Chand held, “Herein it would be pertinent to mention that the accused is a public servant and while lodging F.I.R. against a public servant in regard to commission of any offence during discharge of his official duties, the police officer is duty bound to enquire into the matter before registering the F.I.R. The object behind this is only that there may not be frivolous or harassing allegations against any public servant with any ulterior motive or with any object of extortion.”

Jharkhand High Court Sets Aside Termination Of Bank Employee For Mistakenly Crediting Money In Another Account, Says Punishment Too Harsh

Case Title: Devendra Prasad Yadav v. Jharkhand Gramin Bank and Ors.

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 72

The Jharkhand High Court recently invalidated a 2015 termination order against a bank employee, criticizing the bank's inquiry report as "perverse" due to failure to provide pertinent documents to the petitioner-employee, who was accused of engaging in irregularities at the bank.

The court also deemed the punishment of dismissal from service as excessively severe. Justice Dr. S.N. Pathak observed, “Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties across the bar, it appears that punishment of dismissal is too harsh and disproportionate and as such, the same is fit to be quashed and set aside for the following facts and reasons:

(I) Admittedly, non-supply of relevant documents caused serious prejudiced to the petitioner. It has been admitted by respondents that some of the documents were not available with the respondents and as such, the same could not be supplied to the petitioner.

(II) When a particular document was relied upon by the delinquent, the same was to be served to him seeking his reply. In the case of non-supply of the same, the enquiry report would be termed to be perverse.”

CBIC Circulars Are Binding On Service Tax Dept, Violations Will Make Actions Illegal: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s LMB Sons Versus UOI

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 73

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the circulars or instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) are legally binding on the department, and their violation will make the actions of the respondent illegal and ex-facie bad in law.

The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the Department has violated Clauses 14.10 of Master Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CX dated March 10, 2017, and Clause 4.3 of the Instructions dated November 18, 2021, issued by the CBIC, which provide the manner in which the adjudication order has to be passed by the Respondent Department. Both the Instruction and the Circular provide that the adjudication order must be communicated within one month from the closure of the personal hearing.

Income Tax Dept. Is Duty Bound To Provide All Material Information On Which Reliance Was Placed To The Assessee: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Chotanagpur Diocesson Trust Asson. Versus UOI

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 74

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the Department is duty-bound and is mandatorily required to provide all material information or inquiry conducted on which reliance is being placed, along with supporting documents, to the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that supporting documents have not been provided to the assessee. The department did not provide the details uploaded on the Insight portal, along with the information gathered from the investigation wing and new information uploaded on the Insight portal, to the assessee.

Case Title: State through informant Sadhu Rai vs Mithu Rai and Others

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 75

While expressing strong reservations over a POCSO court's hasty 7-days trial, the Jharkhand High Court asserted that in cases where a statute prescribes death penalty as a possible punishment, the court is obliged to postpone any further proceedings related to the sentencing, after clearly informing the accused of their right to present evidence regarding mitigating circumstances. The High Court annulled the death sentence imposed by the POCSO Court and ordered a fresh trial to be conducted by a different judge of competent jurisdiction.

Passenger Hit By Train While Crossing Railway Track In Absence Of Foot-Over Bridge Entitled To Compensation: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Suresh Ram vs. The Union of India

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 76

The Jharkhand High Court has granted a compensation of Rupees Eight Lacs to the family of a woman who lost her life while attempting to cross the railway tracks in the absence of a foot overbridge and proper lighting facilities. While emphasizing on the legal liability of the Railways to provide amenities for safe travel, the High Court set aside the judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal that denied compensation to the family of a deceased railway passenger.

Seniority Among RIMS Employees To Be Based On Order Of Merit In Selection: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Dr. Kumari Sandhya @ Kumari Sandhya v. State of Jharkhand & Ors

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 77

The Jharkhand High Court has held that seniority among employees at the Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS) should be established based on the order of merit at the time of their appointment to the relevant grade.

The Division Bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar added that in this system, individuals selected earlier would be considered senior to those selected later in a given block. The process for creating a seniority list for individuals selected within the same selection committee would involve several specific steps.

Section 498-A IPC Being Misused As A Weapon By Disgruntled Wives: Jharkhand High Court

Case title - Rakesh Rajput and another vs. The State of Jharkhand and another

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 78

Expressing its concern against misuse of Section 498A IPC, the Jharkhand High Court recently said that this provision of law is being misused as a weapon, rather than a shield, by 'disgruntled wives'.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed that such cases are being filed by the wife in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.

Prosecution Of Public Servant For Corruption Involves Public Interest, Delayed Sanction Doesn't Automatically Invalidate Proceedings: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: Upendra Nath Mandal vs. The Union of India & Ors.

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 79

While emphasizing that non-compliance with the mandatory period for granting sanction to prosecute a public servant should not automatically lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings, especially when the case involves the prosecution of a public servant for corruption, the Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Upendra Nath Mandal, the Former Senior Manager of MECON Ltd, seeking to quash the sanction order for his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Order Passed On Application U/O XXII Rule 3 CPC Not Appealable U/O XLIII Rule 1 CPC Rather It Is A Revisable Order: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: Munga Devi and ors. vs Kamla Devi

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 80

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.

Jharkhand High Court Upholds JPSC's Allocation Decision For Reserved Category Candidates In Administrative Service Cadre

Case Title: Chandan vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 81

In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court rejected multiple appeals filed by candidates seeking special consideration under the reserved category for positions in the Jharkhand Administrative Service cadre. The appeals were directed against the common order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in analogous cases.

The court upheld the decision made by the Single Judge, stating that the petitioners did not meet the specialized subject graduation requirement mentioned in condition no.3 of the advertisement issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) under Advertisement No.23 of 2016. Despite this, the JPSC chose not to cancel their candidature but considered their applications under the reserved category, placing them based on merit.

S.205 CrPC | Provision For Exemption From Personal Appearance Meant To Avoid Undue Harassment Of Accused: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Nawal Kumar Kanodia @ Nawal Kanodia vs The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 82

The Jharkhand High Court has noted that the intention behind the exemption from personal appearance of accused, as outlined in Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), is to ensure that accused individuals are not subjected to unnecessary harassment and that the complainant does not suffer any undue prejudice.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “The purpose of exemption under Section 205 Cr.P.C is that the order of the learned Magistrate should be such which does not make any unnecessary harassment to the accused and at the same time does not cause any prejudice to the complainant and the learned court is required to ensure that exemption from personal appearance granted to the accused is not an abuse or delay the trial.”

Jharkhand High Court Rules In Favor of Revenue In Clean Energy Cess Case

Case Title: Central Coalfields Limited vs union of India

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 83

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled in favor of the Revenue in a case involving the demand for Clean Energy Cess on coal production.

The petitioner, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited and a Category-I Mini Ratna Company since 2007, had challenged the order dated 29.09.2020 passed by respondent no. 3, the Principal Commissioner, Goods & Services Tax-CX, Ranchi.

In the said order, respondent no. 3 had confirmed the demand of Clean Energy Cess amounting to Rs. 470,83,42,400/- under Section 11 (A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule 6(5) of the Clean Environment Cess Rules, 2010, along with interest under Section 11AA/11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

'Can't Lay Conditions Of Eligibility': Jharkhand High Court Rejects Plea Seeking Inclusion Of Sports Quota For Civil Judge Recruitment

Case Title: Mayank Singh Thakur @ Mayank Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 84

The Jharkhand High Court, while rejecting a petition seeking the inclusion of sports quota benefits for the Civil Judge recruitment, emphasized that determining essential qualifications for a job is within the purview of the employer.

The court reiterated that employers have the authority to specify additional or desirable qualifications, and they may choose to grant preference accordingly.

The above ruling came in a writ petition filed by a candidate aspiring to become a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the State. The petitioner essentially a direction to the respondents—particularly respondent no. 3, i.e., the Chairman of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission—to implement a horizontal quota in the sports category for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination conducted in December 2018.

Continuing Proceedings Against Accused Sans Established Criminality Is Abuse Of Process Of Law: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Navin Kumar Sinha & Anr vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 85

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.”

Locker Renting Agreement Can't Be Equated With 'Bailment' Between Hirer and Bank: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Mahesh Minz & Ors vs The State of Jharkhand & Anr

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 86

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.”

Need To Assess Financial Condition Of Family Of Deceased, His Dependents Before Offering Compassionate Appointment: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: Sita Kumari vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 87

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.”

'Putting Criminal Law In Motion Against Accused By Examining Only One Or Two Enquiry Witnesses Is Deprecated': Jharkhand HC

Case Title: Somen Chatterjee vs State of Jharkhand and Anr

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 88

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.