Jharkhand High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 16 To October 22, 2023

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

Judgements/Orders This Week

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.

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."

Other Developments

Jharkhand High Court Imposes Complete Ban On Loudspeakers, Sound Amplifiers From 10 PM To 6 AM; Authorities May Relax 2 Hrs During Festivities

In a significant move, the Jharkhand High Court has issued a comprehensive order to curb noise pollution in the city. The Court has directed the Deputy Commissioners of each district to implement its order of complete ban on loudspeakers, public address systems, sound amplifiers from 10 pm to 6 am in the city.

The court further ordered that there will be no beating of drums, tomtoms or blowing of trumpets during the time fixed by the Court. The ruling came in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Jharkhand Civil Society through its core committee member Atul Gera.