Jharkhand High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 23 - December 29, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 195 – 201]

Irshad and Anr v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 195

Mithilesh Chauhan V. The State of Jharkhand and Sunil Chaubey v/s The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 196

M/s City Alloys Private Limited & Ors vs M/s Hari Om & Co. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 197

Parvez Akhtar and Ors vs Tabish Ansari and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 198

Ganesh Singh @ Nishant Singh vs State of jharkhand and others 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 199

Krishna Mistry @ Krishna Vishwakarma vs Baidyanath Prasad Yadav & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 200

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shaibun Nisha and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 201

Judgments/ Orders This Week

Jharkhand HC Sentences Cops For Unlawful Arrest Of Flipkart Employees Over Alleged OTP Misuse, Says Arnesh Kumar Guidelines Were Ignored

Case Name: Irshad and Anr v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 195

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court has charged two police officers with criminal contempt for unlawfully arresting two Instakart employees, in agency which acts as a logistics arm within the Flipkart Group of Companies, in violation of Supreme Court guidelines set out in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan observed, “There is a brazen disregard/violation of the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar by Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3.”

Sole Witness's Testimony Can Form Basis Of Conviction And Sentence If It Is Wholly Reliable: Jharkhand High Court Reaffirms

Case Title: Mithilesh Chauhan V. The State of Jharkhand and Sunil Chaubey v/s The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 196

In a recent judgement, the Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that a conviction and sentence can be based on the testimony of a solitary witness if it inspires confidence and is wholly reliable.

Finding weight in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants, the division bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “I find weight in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that this is a case where the judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be returned on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of the informant (P.W. 2). Law is settled that in a case where the testimony of the solitary witness inspires confidence and it is wholly reliable, it can be the basis for passing a judgment of conviction and sentence".

Amendment To Affidavit For Incorporating Statement Of Truth Impermissible: Jharkhand High Court

Case Name: M/s City Alloys Private Limited & Ors vs M/s Hari Om & Co.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 197

The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that an amendment to the affidavit in a commercial suit pleading, seeking to incorporate a statement of truth, is impermissible under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Court emphasised that the statement of truth must be filed in the prescribed format under Rule 15A of the Act, and cannot be amended by altering the affidavit annexed to the plaint.

Justice Subhash Chand, presiding over the case, observed, “It is the settled law that the amendment can be made in pleadings which includes plaint and written statement and in view of settled propositions of law the applications in any proceeding as well. It was incumbent upon the learned court below that to provide opportunity to file the statement of truth i.e. affidavit in a prescribed form of the Rule-15A schedule in addition or in place of the general affidavit which was annexed with the plaint; but no amendment could have been allowed for the same in the affidavit.”

Principle Of Res Judicata Bars Second Amendment Application Seeking Identical Reliefs: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Parvez Akhtar and Ors vs Tabish Ansari and Ors

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 198

The Jharkhand High Court in a recent judgement has reiterated that an order passed at one stage of a proceeding bars the reconsideration of the same issue at a later stage.

The Court placed reliance on the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Smt. Deorjin Debi (AIR 1960 SC 941), emphasising that a decision rendered earlier in a case precludes the reconsideration of the same matter in subsequent applications.

Can't Curtail Or Play With A Citizen's Liberty By Detaining Him On Pretext Of Holding Fair Polls: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title - Ganesh Singh @ Nishant Singh vs State of jharkhand and others

LL Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 199

Last week, the Jharkhand High Court observed that a person can't be detained on the grounds that the same is necessary for the proper conduction of Assembly Elections.

“If this becomes a ground, then the same will amount to giving unbridled, uncanalised sweeping power to the administration to detain any person under the Act during the time of election, it will be nothing, but playing with the liberty of citizens,” a bench of Justice Anand Sen and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed.

The division bench also opined that merely entering the Station Diary Entry and alleging some acts cannot be grounds for detaining a person.

Survey Commissioner Cannot Be Appointed To Collect Evidence: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Krishna Mistry @ Krishna Vishwakarma vs Baidyanath Prasad Yadav & Ors

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 200

The Jharkhand High Court, in a recent judgment while setting aside a trial court order appointing a survey commissioner, ruled that the order failed to establish the necessity for local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and lacked sufficient reasoning.

The High Court cited the Apex Court's precedent in Saraswathy vs. Viswanathan [2002 (2) CTC 199], ruling, while setting aside the order of the trial court, and emphasized, “the object of appointment of Commissioner is not to collect the evidence but to elucidate the matters which are local in character and which can be done only by local investigation at spot.”

Burden Of Proof On Vehicle Owner To Establish Driver's Valid License: Jharkhand High Court Sets Aside ₹6.63 Lakh Compensation Award

Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shaibun Nisha and Ors

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 201

The Jharkhand High Court has clarified the burden of proof regarding liability in motor vehicle accident claims, observing that the owner of the offending vehicle must prove that the vehicle was being driven with a valid and effective driving license.

Justice Subhash Chand, presided over the case and noted, “The very burden of proof lies upon the owner of the offending vehicle even if the said vehicle was insured by the Insurance Company that it was being driven by its driver with a valid and effective driving license. If the initial burden is discharged by the owner, then the liability shifts upon only the Insurance Company.”