Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 101-202]Sandeep Kumar Tripathy @ Sandeep Tripathy vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 101Rajendra Prasad Sahu V. State of Jharkhand and Others 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 102 Sri Hemant Soren Vs The Directorate Of Enforcement Represented Thr Its Assistant Director Ranchi Zonal Office 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 103Dr. Suman Kumar Pathak @ Dr. S.K. Pathak v....
Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 101-202]
Sandeep Kumar Tripathy @ Sandeep Tripathy vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 101
Rajendra Prasad Sahu V. State of Jharkhand and Others 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 102
Sri Hemant Soren Vs The Directorate Of Enforcement Represented Thr Its Assistant Director Ranchi Zonal Office 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 103
Dr. Suman Kumar Pathak @ Dr. S.K. Pathak v. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 110
Moina Khatoon v. State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 111
Smt. Meena Kumari Sinha v. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 112
XXX vs The State Of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 113
Budhuwa Oraon V. .Ghura Oraon 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 114
Ravi Shankar Mishra vs Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs And ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 115
Shankar Singh V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 116
TATA Capital Housing Finance Limited V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 117
Arun Kumar Thakur V. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 118
Rengha Oraon @ Regha Oraon V. State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 119
Chhotu Kalindi V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 120
Ajit Barla V. State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 121
Saryu Roy V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 122
Roshan Hazam @ Roshan Baraik V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 123
PCIT Versus Tripta Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 124
Khageshwar Rana V. Smt. Sundri Devi 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 125
Mahendra Prasad Singh V. Ratan Ram 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 126
Noor Islam vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 127
Danyaal Danish vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 128
M/s Aditya Enterprises and Ors vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 129
Mithun Nonia @ Mithun Mahto V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 130
Rohit Chaudhary V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 131
Bholu Singh @ Bhu Kumar Singh @ Bholu Kumar Singh V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 132
Sudesh Rakesh Tirkey V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 133
Sanjeeda Begam V. Md Eqbal 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 134
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V. Tripta Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 135
Sumit Gupta @ Sumit Kumar Gupta vs Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 136
Umesh Kumar Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 137
Ajay Kumar Yadav V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 138
M/s. Deepak Construction V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 139
Narendar Singh @ Narendra Singh vs Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 140
Daya Ram V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 141
Manjunath @ Manjunath Bhajantri vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 142
Babu Lal Marandi and Ors vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 143
Gulshan Kumar Singh Versus The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 144
Laltu Parira vs The State of Jharkhand And Others 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 145
Anukaran Kandulna V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 146
Dr Irfan Ansari v. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 147
The State of Jharkhand V. Rahul Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 148
Shipra Tewary V. M/s Coal India Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 149
Sanjay Karpri @ Sanjay Kumar Kapri vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 150
William Dungdung V. State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 151
Anand Kumar Dangi v. State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 152
Phul Chandra Thaku vs The State of Jharkhand and ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 153
The State of Jharkhand vs Pawan Kumar Singh 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 154
Budhu Nag Chatar V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 155
M/s Pama Pharmaceuticals V. The Ranchi Municipal Corporation 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 156
Sanjeev Bhagat vs Tej Lal Bhagat and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 157
Kavita Devi @ Kabbo Devi and Ors vs Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 158
Arup Chatterjee vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 159
M/s Aka Logistics Private Limited v. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 160
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Munni Kumari and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 161
Bhikhan Ganjhu V. Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 162
Smt. Jyotshna Mishra and Anr vs Gour Baran Ojha 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 163
Sarita Tekriwalla vs Srawan Kumar Gutgutia and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 164
BMW India Private Limited vs John Tapan Kongari and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 165
Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Urmila 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 166
Dr. Nishikant Dubey And Anr v. State of Jharkhand and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 167
Sunil Tiwari @ Sunil Kumar Tiwari v. The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 168
Gumid Murmu v. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 169
Jagdish Paswan v. State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 170
Ripunjay Prasad Singh v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 171
Jay Prakash Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 172
The Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sundari Bibi and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 173
Shakuntala Devi and Ors v. M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 174
Tapeshwar Prasad and Ors v. Akashyabat Ray and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 175
Prashant Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 176
Union of India and Anr v. M/s Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL) 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 177
Devendra Nath Choubey v. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 178
Rajesh Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 179
Smt. Bimla Devi v. Jharkhand State Housing Board 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 184
Md. Naseem Khan v. The President, Managing Committee Masjid Dumka and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 182
National Insurance Company Limited v. Asmin Parveen @ Nagmi 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 183
Randhir Kumar v. Budhdeo Kumar Kashyap And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 185
M/s. Tata Steel Limited v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 186
Deepak Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 187
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kavita and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 188
Ranjit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 189
Abhishek Krishna Gupta vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 190
Ram Janam Ram vs Kripa Nath Chaudhary 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 191
Diwakar Chandra Pandey vs Dhruo Shankar Dubey @ Dhruv Shankar Dubey 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 192
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Most. Dulari Devi and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 193
Sondipon Das vs Dr. Diwesh Kumar Bhagat and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 194
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
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shaibun Nisha and Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 200
Krishna Mistry @ Krishna Vishwakarma vs Baidyanath Prasad Yadav & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 201
Banshi Dhar Shukla vs Union of India and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 202
Judgements/Orders This Year
Case Title: Sandeep Kumar Tripathy @ Sandeep Tripathy vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 101
The Jharkhand High Court has made it clear that there is no prescribed format for recording a dying declaration and it may be either oral or in writing, however, any Court relying on it must ensure that it was made by the declarant in a 'fit state of mind'.
A division bench comprising Justices Subhash Chand and Ananda Sen observed, “It is the settled law that the dying declaration may be oral or in writing. But while relying dying declaration the Court has to satisfy whether it was made in fit state of mind. There is no prescribed format of recording the dying declaration. If the dying declaration is the oral and is very terse that may also inspires the confidence in regard its truthfulness.”
Case Title: Rajendra Prasad Sahu V. State of Jharkhand and Others
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 102
The Jharkhand High Court has ordered the State government to pay ₹5 lakhs in compensation for illegally demolishing a privately owned building that housed five shops. Additionally, the Court has directed the State to pay ₹25,000 for the mental pain and agony suffered by the shop owner due to the State's high-handed actions.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, who presided over the case, stated, “It is established that in such a circumstance the action of the authority in demolishing the shops is nothing but totally illegal, arbitrary and whimsical. It is well settled that the State or its authorities are subject to "etat de droit", i.e. the State is submitted to the law which implies that all actions of the State or its authority and officials must be carried out subject to the constitution and within the limits set by the law.”
Case Title: Sri Hemant Soren Vs The Directorate Of Enforcement Represented Thr Its Assistant Director Ranchi Zonal Office
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 103
The Jharkhand High Court granted bail to former Chief Minister Hemant Soren on Friday in connection with an alleged land scam case. The verdict follows the court's decision to reserve the order on June 13 regarding Soren's bail application.
The ruling was made by a single bench led by Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay. Representing Soren, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora claimed that the charges against him were politically motivated and baseless. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, also argued for Soren's bail, asserting that the ED falsely implicated him.
Case Title: Dr. Suman Kumar Pathak @ Dr. S.K. Pathak v. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 110
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that a private complaint against a doctor cannot be considered unless there is prima facie evidence supported by a credible opinion from another doctor indicating medical negligence by the accused.
Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi said, "it is crystal clear that a private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence in the form of credible opinion given by another doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor. It appears that to allow the proceeding to continue, will amount to an abuse of the process of law."
Case Title: Moina Khatoon v. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 111
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a petition to quash a cheque bounce case, emphasizing that determining whether the petitioner had settled the debt for which the cheques were issued is a factual matter requiring a full trial.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the case, observed, “Now whether or not the petitioner has discharged the debt for which the cheques were issued is a pure question of fact, the veracity of which can only be determined in a full dress trial of the case and certainly, the same being basically a defence of the petitioner cannot be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”
Case Title- Smt. Meena Kumari Sinha v. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 112
The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies to the presentation of electronic evidence, and not physical documents.
Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, presiding over the case observed, “Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act is mainly for the purpose of treating the document as secondary evidence depending upon the availability of the conditions mentioned therein. … Section 65-B of the Act is for the purpose of treating the electronic goods as evidence. One of the provisions of Section 65-B, particularly under Section 65-B(4), is that while accepting the electronic device, a certification is to be given by its custodian,” Justice Prasad added.
Case Title: XXX vs The State Of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 113
The Jharkhand High Court has affirmed the dismissal of a police constable who, despite being married, was involved in a live-in relationship with another woman. The Court stated that such behaviour is inappropriate for a police officer and violates the rules governing his service conditions.
Justice SN Pathak presiding over the case, ruled, "It is unbecoming of a police personnel who was in live-in-relation with another lady other than wife and amounts to violation of rules whereby the service conditions of the petitioner are governed."
Case Title: Budhuwa Oraon V. .Ghura Oraon
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 114
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that documentary evidence not submitted at the time of filing a written statement may be introduced at subsequent stages of a suit, provided due diligence was exercised in their production.
Justice Subhash Chand observed, “The learned trial court while rejecting the application of the plaintiff has not considered this legal position that if the documentary evidence was not filed at the time of written statement despite due diligence, the same may be taken on record at subsequent stage if those documents are necessary for the adjudication of the issues between the parties. Even after the deletion of the provision under Order XVIII Rule 17A of the CPC, the parties may adduce the evidence at later stage of suit showing the sufficient ground not producing them at the time of filing suit or at the time of filing written statement.”
Case Title: Ravi Shankar Mishra vs Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs And ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 115
In a recent judgement concerning the seniority of a CRPF Commandant who survived a Naxal attack and sustained 75% disability, the Jharkhand High Court while ruling in favour of the petitioner, has directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner's seniority. The Commandant was initially denied seniority due to not meeting the required medical category for promotion, attributed to disabilities incurred during the Naxal attack.
Justice SN Pathak, presiding over the case, emphasized, “the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Commandant w.e.f. 10.08.2022, the date on which his batchmates and juniors have been promoted as the medical board, which was due on 10.08.2022, was not held on time due to which the petitioner's medical category could not be determined...other than this, the para 4.13 and 4.16 clearly suggest that as and when the officers regain the SHAPE –I Medical Category, they will be promoted as per the recommendation of the DPC, but they will not be entitled for back wages.”
Case Title: Shankar Singh V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 116
The Jharkhand High Court has overturned the conviction of two individuals charged with criminal breach of trust, ruling that mere delay in the execution of work does not constitute criminal breach of trust, especially in the absence of an agreement specifying a time frame.
Petitioner was entrusted with a sum for construction of school. As per complainant, the construction was delayed.
Case Title: TATA Capital Housing Finance Limited V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 117
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that it is the duty of the District Magistrate to assist secured creditors in taking possession of secured assets under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The court clarified that the District Magistrate is not the adjudicating authority under this Act.
Justice Ananda Sen observed, “It is the duty of the District Magistrate to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured assets. The timeframe has been mentioned which is 30 days. Any delay at the instance of the District Magistrate will frustrate the provision of this Act. Further, the District Magistrate is not the Adjudicating Authority under the aforesaid Act. His duty is only to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the property i.e. giving assistance so that the possession can be taken peacefully and if someone obstructs, appropriate action can be taken against him.”
Case Title: Arun Kumar Thakur V. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 118
The Jharkhand High Court has affirmed the discretionary power of courts under Section 311 Cr.P.C., emphasising its role in uncovering the truth while underscoring the need for its judicious exercise.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi noted, “Section 311 Cr.P.C. is one of many such provisions which strengthens the arms of the Court in its efforts to unearth the truth by procedural sanction by law. At the same time, the discretionary power vested under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reason and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice.”
Case Title: Rengha Oraon @ Regha Oraon V. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 119
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that a valid marriage is a prerequisite for issuing orders under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
The court set aside a maintenance order issued under Section 125, emphasising that the petitioner's second marriage lacked legal sanctity unless he was validly divorced from his first wife.
Case Title: Chhotu Kalindi V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 120
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that to attract Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), voluntary hurt must be caused by instruments of shooting, stabbing, or cutting. The court noted that the use of such instruments can definitely cause death.
Justices Ananda Sen and Subhash Chand observed, “Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. ... To attract Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, a voluntary hurt should be caused by an instrument of shooting and stabbing or cutting. Definitely use of the said instrument can cause death.”
The court set aside a maintenance order issued under Section 125, emphasising that the petitioner's second marriage lacked legal sanctity unless he was validly divorced from his first wife.
Case title: Ajit Barla V. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 121
The Jharkhand High Court has held that when there is an eyewitness who has seen the commission of murder and their evidence is credible, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive behind the offence.
“When there is eye witness, who had seen the commission of murder and their evidence is credible, it is not necessary that the prosecution has to prove the motive behind the offence,” observed the division bench comprising Justices Ananda Sen and Subhash Chand.
Case Title: Saryu Roy V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 122
The Jharkhand High Court has held that if a cognizable offence has been committed and the petitioner feels that a First Information Report (FIR) needs to be registered, he can be the informant and get an FIR registered at the police station or file a complaint before a competent court.
The Court emphasized that there are ample provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure to address such situations, and approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India initially is not the appropriate remedy.
Case Title: Roshan Hazam @ Roshan Baraik V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 123
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the mere pendency of a title suit does not justify discharging an individual from a theft offense unless a competent court has ruled that the accused was in possession and that the case was lodged maliciously by the informant.
Justice Gautam Kumar Chaoudhary observed, “Having considered the submissions, this Court is of the view that mere pendency of a title suit cannot be a ground for claiming discharge from the for offence of theft, unless and until there is an order of competent Court that it was the accused who was in possession, and informant had lodged the case maliciously as such no relief can be granted at the stage of discharge. Plea of title and/or possession in defence can be considered during trial and not at the time of framing of charge”
Case Title: PCIT Versus Tripta Sharma
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 124
The Jharkhand High Court, while dismissing the appeal filed by the department, held that a delayed condonation application not filed with an appeal memo and subsequent filing cannot cure defects.
The bench of Chief Justice B.R. Sarangi and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad has observed that time and again if the appeal memo does not contain an application of delay condonation and was not filed at the time of filing of the same, then even subsequent filing of the application for condonation of delay cannot cure the defect. As such, the delay condonation application having not been filed till date in spite of the opportunity given, the delay cannot be condoned as the appeals are grossly barred by limitation.
Case Title: Khageshwar Rana V. Smt. Sundri Devi
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 125
The Jharkhand High Court has held that in accordance with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, clerical and arithmetical mistakes can be rectified in judgements and decrees.
Justice Subhash Chand presiding over the case, observed, “In view of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the clerical and arithmetical mistake can be rectified the judgment and decree as well. The learned Trial Court has committed illegality by refusing the application for amendment of the petitioner-plaintiff up to the extent of correction of the plot number and are as well, which sought to be corrected in view of the details of the property as shown in the plaint.”
Case Title: Mahendra Prasad Singh V. Ratan Ram
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 126
The Jharkhand High Court has held that while a sale deed is initially a private document, it becomes a public document upon registration with the Registrar. However, for the sale deed to be marked as exhibited in a trial, its execution must be proven by witnesses or parties involved in the sale deed.
Justice Subhash Chand presiding over the case observed, “The sale deed is the private documents though after registration in the office of Registrar it become public document. But unless and until the execution of the sale deed is proved by the witnesses of the sale deed or the parties to the sale deed the exhibit on the same cannot be marked.”
Case Title: Noor Islam vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 127
The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the conviction of a man for the murder of his wife, despite the trial court's failure to verify the competency of an eleven-year-old child witness.
The High Court presided over by the division bench of Justices Ananda Sen and Subhash Chand, noted that Jasmira Khatoon's testimony remained rational and consistent even though the trial court did not evaluate her suitability as a witness.
Case Title: Danyaal Danish vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 128
The Jharkhand High Court on Thursday expressed dismay at the State authorities' silence in their affidavits over the declining tribal population in the Santhal Pargana region. The remarks were made in the court's order passed while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea highlighting alleged illegal immigration from Bangladesh in the region.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai was hearing a PIL moved by one Danyaal Danish claiming that in six districts– Godda, Jamtara, Pakur, Dumka, Sahibganj and Deoghar (comprising of the Santhal Pargana region), there is wide-scale infiltration of the foreigners who are "mainly coming" from Bangladesh.
Case title: M/s Aditya Enterprises and Ors vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 129
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that Deputy Commissioners in each district lack the authority to initiate and decide confiscation proceedings under the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transport and Storage) Rules, 2017.
This decision, made by a division bench comprising Justice Anand Sen and Justice Subhash Chand, deems Rule 11(V) of the Jharkhand Mineral Rules, 2017, as ultra vires to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (parent Act).
Case Title: Mithun Nonia @ Mithun Mahto V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 130
The Jharkhand High Court has held that awarding unrealistically high maintenance in cases involving individuals employed in the unorganised sector can lead to difficulties in realising the maintenance amount.
In the case at hand, an order of maintenance was passed, awarding Rs. 3000/- to the wife of the petitioner and Rs. 1000/- each to his three children. A criminal revision petition was filed challenging this order.
Case Title: Rohit Chaudhary V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 131
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a mere breach of contract does not constitute an offence under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code without the presence of 'entrustment'. The provision penalises criminal breach of trust.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi observed, “Offence of criminal breach of trust has been defined under section 405 I.P.C. and same is punishable under section 406 I.P.C. In order to bring offence of criminal breach of trust, entrustment should be there.”
Case Title: Bholu Singh @ Bhu Kumar Singh @ Bholu Kumar Singh V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 132
The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that Test Identification Parade (TIP) conducted during the investigation is part of the investigative process and does not constitute substantive evidence. Thus, it emphasised that irregularities in conducting TIP is not a sufficient ground to discard the prosecution's case, if supported by other credible evidence.
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the case, observed,
“Even if it is assumed that there was irregularity in the TIP, which appears to be in the present case, that will by itself not erode the evidentiary value of the identification in the Court. identification in TIP during investigation is part of the investigation and it is not substantive piece of evidence. Any irregularity committed during investigation cannot be said to be the sole ground to discard the prosecution case in its entirety if it is otherwise proved by other cogent and reliable evidence.”
Case Title: Sudesh Rakesh Tirkey V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 133
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that the defense of the accused cannot be considered when considering a discharge petition.
Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, who presided over the case, remarked, "It appears that the points raised as a basis of discharge of the petitioners pertains to their defence in the case. The truth or falsify of the case could be decided only at the trial and probable defence of the petitioners cannot be accepted at the initial stage of proceeding, which requires to be substantiated during trial. It appears that the learned trial court has recorded sufficient reasons while rejecting the discharge petition of the petitioners."
Case Title: Sanjeeda Begam V. Md Eqbal
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 134
The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that the mere age of a document does not serve as conclusive proof of its due execution.
The Court emphasised that prima facie proof is necessary to establish that a document is thirty years old to raise a presumption under Section 90 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, though this presumption remains rebuttable.
Appeals Filed Without Delay Condonation Applications Cannot Be Rectified Later: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V. Tripta Sharma
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 135
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that if an appeal memo does not contain an application for the condonation of delay at the time of its filing, subsequent filing of such an application cannot cure the defect.
The appeal, filed in 2020, sought to quash the order passed by the Judicial Member and Accountant Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ranchi Bench, for different assessment years. However, it was filed without any application for the condonation of delay.
Case Title: Sumit Gupta @ Sumit Kumar Gupta vs Union of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 136
The Jharkhand High Court has rejected the bail application of a man involved in a massive GST fraud case of Rs. 781.39 crores and accused of orchestrating a large-scale fake GST invoice scam.
The accused, Sumit Gupta, alleged to be the mastermind behind the creation and operation of 135 bogus firms, was charged with causing a massive financial loss of Rs. 781.39 crores to the government exchequer. The court highlighted the severity of Gupta's actions, which included forgery, fraud, and the exploitation of economically vulnerable individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Case Title: Umesh Kumar Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 137
A single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court, comprising Justice S.N. Pathak, while deciding a petition, held that an employee who has been illegally terminated should not be denied the benefits they would have received had the termination not occurred.
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Yadav V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 138
The Jharkhand High Court has recently reiterated that in cases of registration of sale deeds, the registering authority cannot examine the nature of right, title, character of the deed's subject matter, if it is properly executed and does not have any legal or formal defects.
Relying on a 2012 ruling of a coordinate bench in Dinesh Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others, a single judge bench Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary said, "Under such circumstances, if the sale-deed is duly executed and sufficiently stamped and there is no legal or formal defect, this Court is of the considered view that the Registering Authority cannot refuse to register the deed if the same is presented for registration as the Registering Authority is debarred from examining the nature of right, title and character in respect of the subject matter of the sale-deed presented for registration".
Case Title: M/s. Deepak Construction V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 139
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a writ court operating under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assess the quantum of damage or compensation, as such an assessment requires adjudication through evidence, which is the jurisdiction of another appropriate forum.
The division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai observed, “This Court is of the view that the writ court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assess the quantum of damage or compensation since the same requires adjudication by leading evidence for which the appropriate forum is else.”
Case Title: Narendar Singh @ Narendra Singh vs Union of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 140
The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against a man accused of tax evasion under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case involved allegations that the petitioner, a tractor dealer, failed to pay the tax liability associated with his income tax returns for the assessment year 2011-12, despite declaring the amount in his filing.
The court's decision to quash the proceedings hinged on the fact that the tax was eventually paid, albeit with some delay, and that there were no pending recovery proceedings against the petitioner.
Case Title: Daya Ram V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 141
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that while promotion is not an employee's inherent right, the right to be considered for promotion arises when juniors are considered.
The writ petition was filed by the Petitioner seeking a direction for the Respondent-State to review his case for promotion to the position of Assistant Engineer. The Petitioner argued that despite being eligible for promotion, his application was not considered due to the absence of his Annual Confidential Report (ACR), which prevented the Departmental Promotion Committee from evaluating his case.
Case Title: Manjunath @ Manjunath Bhajantri vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 142
The Jharkhand High Court last week quashed an FIR against Manjunath Bhajantri, the former Deoghar deputy commissioner, which was filed by Godda MP Nishikant Dubey.
The FIR, originally registered as a zero FIR in Delhi on August 31, 2022, accused Bhajantri of sedition and breaches of the Official Secrets Act, and was later transferred to the Kunda police station in Deoghar. The charges against Bhajantri included Section 353, 448, 201, 506, and 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 7 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.
Case Title: Babu Lal Marandi and Ors vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 143
The Jharkhand High Court has recently issued a ruling that quashes the criminal cases filed against 28 BJP leaders, including MP Nishikant Dubey, in connection with a protest organized against the Jharkhand government in April 2023.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwidevi, who presided over the case, observed, “When there is a protest against police action or inaction, the possibility of violation of fundamental rights is maximum because police is licensed to carry arms for protecting people. Misuse of such power can taken place due to mistaken belief in the absolutism of the police power or on account of lack of sensitivity to the democratic rights.
Case Title: Gulshan Kumar Singh Versus The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 144
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that appeals related to scheduled offences under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008, must be filed before a Division Bench of the High Court, even when the original judgement or order is passed by a Sessions Court acting in the absence of a designated Special Court.
In the ruling delivered by Justice Rajesh Shankar, it was observed, “Looking to the gravity and seriousness of the offences under the Schedule of the Act, 2008, the legislature has made specific provision under section 21 of the said Act for filing of appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court to expedite the hearing of such cases. Thus, the word “Special Court” as mentioned in section 21 of the Act, 2008 has to be given purposive construction so that the purpose of the provision as intended by the legislature may be achieved.”
Case Title: Laltu Parira vs The State of Jharkhand And Others
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 145
The Jharkhand High Court has refused to grant additional compensation to a man claiming that he lost 60% eyesight due to an accident from fall of a live wire in April 2018. It ruled that the accident had occurred before the Gazette notification issued by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (JSERC) on December 21, 2018, rendering the claim for extra compensation invalid.
However, the court urged the Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (JBVNL) to consider extending help to the petitioner under corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Case Title: Anukaran Kandulna V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 146
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that sexual assaults, typically not occurring in public, do not necessitate corroboration in every instance.
The court highlighted that unless a victim's testimony contains something significantly unusual, it should not be dismissed solely for lack of medical evidence. However, the Court also stressed the necessity for vigilance to prevent false implications against the accused.
The division bench, led by Justices Ananda Sen and Gautam Kumar Choudhary, noted, “At the outset, it need to be noted that the Evidence Act is a pragmatic document and proof a fact depends upon the facts and circumstance of each case. Section 134 of the Evidence Act does not mandate any specific number of witnesses required to prove any fact and one cogent, reliable and trustworthy witness is sufficient for proof. Sexual assaults are not committed in public, and therefore, to look for corroboration in all cases will be an unrealistic pursuit. Unless there is something egregiously unusual in the testimony of a victim it cannot be discarded even if it is not corroborated by any medical evidence. However, courts need to be on guard against any false implication of the accused.”
Live Wire Accident: Jharkhand High Court Refuses To Enhance Compensation Based On Subsequent Govt Circulars/ Disclosure Of Rape Victim Identity Via WhatsApp Group Also Barred: Jharkhand High Court Upholds Charges Against Jamtara MLA
Case Title: Dr Irfan Ansari v. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 147
The Jharkhand High Court has declined to quash charges against Jamtara MLA and Minister for State's Rural Development, Dr. Irfan Ansari, who has been accused of circulating the identity of a minor rape victim to the media via WhatsApp.
A single bench of Justice Arun Kumar Rai referred to Section 228A IPC which prohibits printing or publishing the name or rape victim identity in any matter. It further held that Section 23 of POCSO Act, which bars revealing the identity of minor rape victim in "any form of media or studio or photographic facilities", includes WhatsApp groups.
Case Title: The State of Jharkhand V. Rahul Kumar
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 148
The Jharkhand High Court has confirmed the capital punishment for a man convicted of the rape and murder of a 19-year-old woman in Ranchi, emphasizing that victimology extends beyond mere compensation.
The division judge bench comprising Justices Ananda Sen and Gautam Kumar Choudhary noted, “Victimology is not all about victim compensation, which cannot be a recompense for valuable life lost to crime in such circumstance. It is also to inflict punishment proportionate to the nature and gravity of offence. We will fail the victim and the society if capital punishment is not awarded in such cases.”
Case Title: Shipra Tewary V. M/s Coal India Limited
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 149
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that denial of employment to a female candidate only on the basis of gender is against the provisions of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
The court noted that in exceptional cases, where there is no male nominee, the proposal for female employment was being considered by the Eastern Coalfields Limited and, as such, on the basis of gender, the company was denying employment.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “denial of employment to the female candidate is against the provision made in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The Court further finds that in paragraph 30 of the counter affidavit itself, it is stated that in exceptional cases where there is no male nominee, the proposal for female employment was being considered by the Eastern Coalfields Limited and, as such, on the basis of gender, denying the employment is against the mandate of the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India is the fountain of the statute and this aspect has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and others (supra).”
Case Title: Sanjay Karpri @ Sanjay Kumar Kapri vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 150
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that a writ petition filed against an order passed by the Labour Court under the Workmen's Compensation Act is not maintainable.
The above ruling came in a writ petition which was filed challenging a 2017 judgement passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar in a Workmen Compensation case. The Labour Court had directed the petitioner, Sanjay Karpri, to deposit a compensation amount of ₹3,36,000 within three months, which the petitioner had contested.
Case Title: William Dungdung V. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 151
The Jharkhand High Court has held that family members of a victim are natural witnesses to an incident and cannot be deemed biassed solely because of their close relationship to the victim.
The division bench, comprising Justices Ananda Sen and Gautam Kumar Choudhary, rejected the argument made by the appellants that independent witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, while observing, “It is difficult to agree with the argument advanced on behalf of the convicts that independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution. Members of the family are natural witnesses to the incidence and they cannot be said to be interested only for the reason that they happen to be the close family relatives of the victim.”
Case Title: Anand Kumar Dangi v. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 152
The Jharkhand High Court recently set aside the death sentence awarded to a man by the trial court which had convicted him for the murder of his pregnant wife and 15-month-old infant child, citing "sketchy evidence" and the fact that the prosecution was unable to prove the circumstances of the case.
In doing so, the high court expressed its concern with the manner in which the alleged crime was investigated and prosecuted during trial adding that none of the circumstances were proved to show that the husband was complicit.
Case Title: Phul Chandra Thaku vs The State of Jharkhand and ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 153
A single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising of Justice Deepak Roshan, while deciding a writ petition, held that objections regarding an employee's appointment cannot be raised post-retirement if no such objections were made during the employee's service period.
Case Title: The State of Jharkhand vs Pawan Kumar Singh
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 154
The Jharkhand High Court has commuted the death sentence imposed on a Railway police constable who opened fire on the family of his neighbour-milk supplier, for demanding dues.
While doing so, the Court held that since the Constable had used his service pistol, conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act 1959 cannot stand.
The Court clarified that Section 27 of the Act does not apply in all cases involving the use of firearms, but is limited to instances where the firing is in violation of Section 5 or Section 7 of the Arms Act, such as firing by an unlicensed individual or by a prohibited arm. In this case, the accused had used a service pistol, legally issued to him, thus making the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act unsustainable.
Case Title: Budhu Nag Chatar V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 155
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a confession made by an accused person before the Panchayat qualifies as an extra-judicial confession.
The Court emphasised that an extra-judicial confession can serve as the basis for conviction if the person before whom the confession is made is impartial and not hostile toward the accused.
Case Title: M/s Pama Pharmaceuticals V. The Ranchi Municipal Corporation
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 156
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the principles of natural justice cannot be treated as mere formalities. The Court emphasised that when an adverse decision is being made, the concerned authority must inform the affected party about the proposed action to be taken against them. Failure to follow this procedure would amount to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai observed, “This Court, on appreciation of the rival submissions advanced on behalf of parties, is of the view that what is being contended on behalf of petitioner is having substance reason being that the principles of natural justice cannot be said to be mere formality and when an adverse decision is being taken then it is incumbent upon the authority concerned to apprise the party concerned who is to suffer from the adverse decision i.e., regarding the proposed action which is to be taken against that party. If such parameter has not been followed then it will be said that there is non- compliance of principles of natural justice.”
Case Title: Sanjeev Bhagat vs Tej Lal Bhagat and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 157
The Jharkhand High Court has clarified the application of Order XXIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), reaffirming that defendants can only be transposed as plaintiffs in two specific situations: first, when the plaintiff has either withdrawn or abandoned the suit and second, when the defendant has a substantial question of law to be decided against another defendant.
Justice Subhash Chand, in a single bench ruling, reiterated, “Taking into consideration the very provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1A of the CPC, it is evident that defendants may transpose as plaintiff in a suit only in the circumstances; firstly when the plaintiff has withdrawn the suit or abandoned the suit and secondly when the defendant has substantial question of law to be decided against any other defendant.”
Case Title: Kavita Devi @ Kabbo Devi and Ors vs Union of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 158
The Jharkhand High Court has granted Rs 8 Lakh along with interest as compensation to the widow of a man who died in 2017 after accidentally falling from a running train, setting aside a decision by the Railway Claims Tribunal which had rejected her claim.
In doing so the high court ruled that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, despite the absence of a ticket during the inquest report.
Case Title: Arup Chatterjee vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 159
The Jharkhand High Court has recently directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate allegations relating to a nexus between the coal mafia and police officials in the city of Dhanbad.
The court, finding sufficient grounds, transferred the case to the CBI because of the local police's reluctance to register a First Information Report (FIR) despite the opportunities to do so.
In its order, the court stated, “The Court finds that prima facie case of transferring this case is made out to the C.B.I. as highers are involved and the Jharkhand police is not willing to register the F.I.R. in view of the opportunity provided to them and they have resisted the same in the counter affidavit in the form of I.A. only on the ground that the petitioner is having the criminal antecedent.”
Case Title: M/s Aka Logistics Private Limited v. Union of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 160
The Jharkhand High Court has provided a significant clarification regarding who qualifies as the “proper officer” empowered to issue a show cause notice under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
The Division Bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai observed that “If the definition of the Poper Officer will be taken into consideration along with the provision of Section 168 of the Act, 2017, the Commissioner if authorized to act by the Board in view of the power as conferred under Section 168 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Commissioner or the Joint Secretary will be said to exercise the power of Commissioner or Joint Secretary construed to be with the approval of the Board.”
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Munni Kumari and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 161
The Jharkhand High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance, challenging an award of ₹50,90,176 in compensation to the family of a deceased lawyer who was killed in a road accident, while reaffirming that non-compliance with permit regulations does not constitute a fundamental breach of an insurance policy.
Justice Subhash Chand presiding over the case observed, “The claim petition cannot be said to be fake reason being in this case the owner of the Tempo was also impleaded as party and the owner of the Tempo was very much aware that he had no route permit of the Tempo and the liability would ultimately be fixed upon the owner. Had there been any connivance of the owner of the driver with the claimants he would not at all have permitted the claimants to falsely implicate his Tempo in the alleged accident.”
Case Title: Bhikhan Ganjhu V. Union of India
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 162
The Jharkhand High Court has held that merely alleging membership in a terrorist gang and association with its leadership, without providing specific instances of involvement in criminal activities, would not be enough to substantiate such claims.
Thus granting bail to the appellant charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), the court ruled that vague and generalized accusations would not suffice to withhold liberty.
The division bench comprising Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan observed,
“The allegations itself are vague and generalized. The involvement of the appellant in terrorist activities has to be founded upon specific evidence. Merely, alleging that the appellant is a member of a terrorist gang closely associated with the top brass of such gang and his involvement in various nefarious activities without specifying instances would not cement such allegations into a concrete form.”
Case Title: Smt. Jyotshna Mishra and Anr vs Gour Baran Ojha
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 163
While hearing a title dispute over a property, the Jharkhand High Court said that once a suit is instituted and notice is issued, the defendant has the right to file an application under Order 7 Rule 11-D of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, even if a written statement has not been filed.
In doing so, the high court found that the trial court's order rejecting the petitioner's plea for rejection of the respondent's plaint was wrong on both facts and law.
A single judge bench of Justice Subhash Chand, in its order stated, “Once the suit has been instituted and the same has been registered and notice has been issued to the defendant, the defendant has right to move the application under Order 7 Rule 11-D of C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint even without filing the written statement.”
Case Title: Sarita Tekriwalla vs Srawan Kumar Gutgutia and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 164
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that a co-owner of a property cannot object to the execution of a decree simply because they were not included as a party in the eviction suit initiated by one of the co-owners. This decision underscores the limitations of a co-owner's rights in such proceedings.
The Court clarified that such an objection under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is not maintainable, as alternate legal remedies are available to the co-owner to protect their rights.
The Court differentiated between the a landlord and a co-owner. Notably, a landlord has the legal authority to lease property and enforce eviction against a tenant; whereas a co-owner merely shares ownership of the property without necessarily having the same legal control over the lease or eviction process.
Case Title: BMW India Private Limited vs John Tapan Kongari and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 165
In a plea concerning a matter entertained by the district consumer disputes redressal commission without first deciding issue of pecuniary jurisdiction, the Jharkhand High Court reiterated that this issue must be decided first by a court or a tribunal before proceeding further.
The court also emphasized the supervisory role of High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution to intervene in cases exhibiting jurisdictional errors, evident procedural irregularities, or perverse orders.
Case Title: Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Urmila Devi and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 166
The Jharkhand High Court, in a recent appeal filed by the New India Assurance Company, upheld the entitlement of the deceased's legal heirs to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, notwithstanding the compassionate appointment of the deceased's son following his death in a motor accident.
A single bench of Justice Subhash Chand observed, “The provision of the compassionate appointment after the death of the employee during his service period is statutory provision in all cases whether the death is natural, accidental, suicidal or homicidal, the dependent of the deceased are entitled to compassionate appointment. Therefore, I am of the view that the compassionate appointment has no co-relation with the amount of compensation, which the dependents of the deceased are entitled after the death in motor accident.”
Case Title: Dr. Nishikant Dubey And Anr vs State of Jharkhand and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 167
Dismissing an application moved by a man alleging that the counsel appearing for BJP MP Nishikant Dubey in an ongoing criminal writ petition, had appeared for the former and their professional relationship had continued, the Jharkhand High Court imposed a cost of Rs 1 Lakh finding the plea to be "misconceived" and filed with an "ill motive" to obstruct judicial proceedings.
A single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, in its October 28 order said, “...the court finds that prima facie with ill motive so that this court cannot decide the case today, the respondent No. 2 has filed the aforesaid I.A., however, at the earlier point of time, two weeks time was taken by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 to file counter affidavit and the counter affidavit has not been filed as yet and today itself, the aforesaid I.A. has been filed even the prayer is not made today for any time to file counter affidavit.”
Case Title: Sunil Tiwari @ Sunil Kumar Tiwari vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 168
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the criminal proceedings, including a rape charge, against Sunil Tiwari, political adviser to Jharkhand BJP chief Babulal Marandi, citing "abuse of process of law."
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the case, noted that while the High Court is generally cautious in deciding whether a case has merit, it also has a duty to prevent malicious prosecution.
He emphasized, “if malicious prosecution is made and if the High Court will not interfere it will further amount abuse of process of law for that the High Court is having more responsibility to read the things in between the line so that any innocent person may not put to harassment and face a trial."
Case Title: Gumid Murmu V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 169
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the credibility of a witness's testimony depends not on the number of witnesses but on the quality of evidence presented.
The division bench comprising Justices Ananda Sen and Gautam Kumar Choudhary highlighted, “To rely or not to rely on the evidence of a witness, is the question which every Court is confronted with while appreciating evidence. Evidence Act is not a pedantic, but a pragmatic document which does not mandate any number of witness required for proof of any fact (Section 134).”
Case Title: Jagdish Paswan vs State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 170
While hearing a service law matter, the Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that departmental proceedings must adhere to established rules and some sort of evidence is required to be proved against the delinquent.
In doing so, the court further noted that the departmental enquiry report concerning the petitioner–who was accused of mismanagement of funds and dismissed from service, did not show how were the charges alleged against him were proved. The court further noted that not a single witness had been examined.
Case Title: Ripunjay Prasad Singh v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 171
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a petition filed by the Director of a company seeking to quash criminal proceedings for cheque bouncing under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and said that not making the company a separate accused in the complaint would not be fatal for the prosecution.
The Court noted that while the company that issued the cheque was not named as an accused, the complainant had made the company's Director who had signed the cheque in question as an accused and had mentioned the company's name in Section 138 complaint petition in the accused persons column.
Case Title: Jay Prakash Yadav V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 172
The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the murder conviction of a constable, emphasising the reliability of direct evidence under Section 60 of the Evidence Act. The Court clarified that testimony from an eyewitness who directly observed or heard a fact constitutes direct evidence.
The division bench of Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary noted, “Informant is a direct eye witness to the incidence and cannot be said to be hearsay, for the reason that he had heard the sound of firing. His testimony is corroborated by the attending circumstance of the appellant being arrested soon after the incidence.”
Case Title: The Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sundari Bibi and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 173
The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the award of ₹11,45,932 granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Dhanbad, to the widow of a carpenter who succumbed to injuries sustained in a fatal motorcycle accident.
The court emphasised that failure of the insurance company to summon key witnesses or rebut the evidence presented by the claimants resulted in an adverse inference being drawn against it, reaffirming established principles of evidence law and the insurer's liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Case Title: Shakuntala Devi and Ors vs. .M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 174
The Jharkhand High Court has rectified an error in the computation of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bokaro by assessing the income of the deceased, a mason, as that of a semi-skilled worker, contrary to the classification in the Jharkhand Minimum Wage Notification.
Justice Subhash Chand, presiding over the case, observed, “the learned Tribunal has held that the deceased was a mason; but the income of the deceased was assessed as a semi-skilled worker in view of the Jharkhand Minimum Wage Notification with effect from 1st October, 2019 the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Govt. of Jharkhand vide Notification No. 2/MW-2071/2010 L & T-1836 has released the minimum wages variable dearness allowance effective from 1st October, 2019 as accident had occurred on 27.12.2019. The total minimum wages of semi-skilled worker during the year 2019 was fixed by the Government of Jharkhand Rs. 7008.14/- per month and in round of figure the income was assessed 7,000/- per month.”
Case Title: Tapeshwar Prasad and Ors vs Akashyabat Ray and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 175
While enhancing the compensation awarded to the family of a 33-year-old woman who died on the spot in a road accident, the Jharkhand High Court observed that future prospects must be factored into the assessment of her contribution to the household.
Modifying the compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs. 3,84,000 to Rs. 5,69,600, the court observed that it would be appropriate to add 40% of income as future prospect while assessing the compensation amount.
Case Title: Prashant Kumar Singh V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 176
While hearing a cheque bouncing case, the Jharkhand High Court has reaffirmed that cognizance of offences under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act does not require a report to the police nor empowers the court to direct the police to investigate the complaint.
The court further clarified that under Section 142(1)(a) of the NI Act the cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 for cheque dishonour can only be taken upon a written complaint.
Case Title: Union of India and Anr vs M/s Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL)
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 177
While hearing a plea seeking exercising of power under Article 227 of Constitution and for passing interim orders till fresh orders are passed by the concerned court, the Jharkhand High Court reiterated that power under the provision is to be used sparingly and cannot be used to correct "mere errors".
In doing so the court further observed that if the power is used in this manner, then it will lead to accelerating the error committed. The high court was hearing a plea moved by the Union of India against Coal Bearing Tribunal's order issuing status quo in Adani's plea for restraining the Union from taking any coercive steps in view of the allegation that Adani did not seek the necessary approvals with regard to the Gondulpara Coal Block
Case Title: Devendra Nath Choubey V. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 178
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the actual use of criminal force is not a condition precedent to attract the offence of assault defined under Section 351 of the IPC, which is punishable under Section 353 applicable.
The Court held that the mere apprehension in the victim's mind about the potential use of criminal force, created by the accused's gestures, is sufficient to constitute the offence.
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 179
The Jharkhand High Court in a recent judgement, has directed the State to regularise the services of an appellant who had been engaged as a Computer Operator on a daily-wage basis since 2008 and later on a contractual basis.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan observed, “We are of the opinion that utilizing the services of the appellant from 2008 (though under nomenclature of a 'daily wage' employee initially and later from 2013 as a 'contractual appointee,' which appointment was in fact done through a selection process adopted by the State with the Deputy Commissioner as the head of the Interview Committee), is practically indistinguishable from an appointment in a permanent post of clerk who is also engaged in doing typing on computer and data entry.”
Case Title: Smt. Bimla Devi vs Jharkhand State Housing Board
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 184
The Jharkhand High Court recently dismissed a writ petition seeking relief against alleged interference with the petitioner's possession and ownership of property, while ruling that disputes involving questions of "right, title, interest and possession" require evidence and cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction.
Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary, presiding over the case, stated, “This Court finds that there is serious dispute in connection with right, title, interest and possession with respect to the property involved in the present case.”
Case Title: Md. Naseem Khan vs The President, Managing Committee Masjid Dumka and ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 182
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a family member who resided with and was dependent on a deceased tenant qualifies as a legal heir under the proviso to Section 5 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent, and Eviction Control) Act, 2011.
The court thus set aside orders by the trial and appellate courts that had rejected the substitution application of a nephew of the deceased plaintiff, emphasizing that the statutory provisions were overlooked, leading to a perverse finding.
Case Title: National Insurance Company Limited vs Asmin Parveen @ Nagmi
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 183
The Jharkhand High Court has held that admissions made in pleadings are binding under Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and cannot be retracted at the appellate stage.
Justice Subhash Chand, presiding over the case, observed, “So far as the second plea raised by the Appellant assailing the impugned Award on the ground that the claimant injured had sustained no injury by causing the accident by the offending Truck. This plea of the fact has been raised on behalf of the Appellant for the first time at the stage of appeal.”
Case Title: Randhir Kumar vs Budhdeo Kumar Kashyap And Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 185
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that the title for ownership in regard to the property in question is not to be adjudicated under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Justice Subhash Chand, while dismissing a Civil Miscellaneous Petition challenging a trial court's rejection of an impleadment application, reiterated, “the suit was for recovery of the possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. It is the settled law that in a suit under Section 6 for the Specific Relief Act, the title for ownership in regard to the property in question is not to be adjudicated. The dispute which is between the parties whether the property in question had been partitioned before executing the agreement to sell, in favour of the plaintiff in suit by one of the co-sharer, same has no bearing while deciding the suit under Section 6 for Specific Relief Act.”
Case Title: M/s. Tata Steel Limited hav vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 186
A single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary held that employers are liable to pay interest at 10% rate if they delay in payment of gratuity, as per the notification issued by the Central Government in consonance with Section 7 (3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Case Title: Deepak Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 187
The Jharkhand High Court in a recent judgement has held that an amendment to a plaint introducing a new cause of action and seeking new relief against the State is not maintainable without prior notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Justice Subhash Chand, presiding over the case, observed, “This proposed amendment is in regard to the new cause of action and the new relief as well. Before seeking this amendment, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to give prior notice to the State under Section 80 of C.P.C. pleading the new cause of action in regard to the construction of Trauma Centre in the land in suit and also for the delivery of the possession of the land on which the Trauma Centre has been erected after having demolished the same.”
Case Title: Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kavita and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 188
The Jharkhand High Court has recently ruled that the renewal commission earned by a deceased LIC agent is hereditary and payable to the widow irrespective of whether the death is natural, homicidal, or accidental.
The court held that this commission cannot be deducted from the loss of dependency amount in compensation claims.
Case Title: Abhishek Krishna Gupta vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 190
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a contempt petition filed by an advocate, observing that it was not maintainable under the Contempt of Courts Act as the petitioner lacked locus and failed to fulfil mandatory requirements for initiating such proceedings.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, in its decision, observed, “It is well settled if a private party seeks punishment for contempt of Court, he can file a petition only under Section 15 of the said Act with prior written consent of the learned Advocate General. In the case in hand, no such prior written consent has been obtained by Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, Advocate appearing in person and in view of that, he has not fulfilled mandatory requirement for invoking contempt jurisdiction of the Court.”
Case Title: Ram Janam Ram vs Kripa Nath Chaudhary
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 191
The Jharkhand High Court has under Order 23 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the limitation period for a fresh suit instituted with court permission applies as if the original suit had never been filed.
Order 23 CPC pertains to withdrawal and adjustment of suits wherein Rule 2 states that in any fresh suit instituted on permission granted under the last preceding rule, the plaintiff shall be bound by the law of limitation in the same manner as if the first suit had not been instituted.
Case Title: Diwakar Chandra Pandey vs Dhruo Shankar Dubey @ Dhruv Shankar Dubey
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 192
The Jharkhand High Court in a judgment delivered recently emphasised the mandatory nature of conducting a summary inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) when disputes arise regarding the legal heirs of a deceased plaintiff or defendant.
Justice Subhash Chand, presiding over the case, held: “Where there is dispute in regards to legal heirs of deceased plaintiff or defendant the trial court should adopt summary inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code as to who is the legal heir from the rival claimants. It is mandatory for the court to determine the legal heir taking into consideration the right to sue or be sued is surviving."Where there is dispute in regards to legal heirs of deceased plaintiff or defendant the trial court should adopt summary inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code as to who is the legal heir from the rival claimants. It is mandatory for the court to determine the legal heir taking into consideration the right to sue or be sued is surviving.”
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Most. Dulari Devi and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 193
The Jharkhand High Court has slashed the interest rate on compensation awarded to the family of a 50-year-old barber who was struck by a mini-bus, ruling that the 12% annual interest granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Dumka, was excessive.
Justice Subhash Chand, presiding over the case, reduced the interest rate to 7.5%, stating, “The impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the total amount of compensation which would be payable to the claimants would be ₹8,17,600/- and 7.5% interest would be payable thereon from the date of filing the claim petition i.e., 30th March, 2012 till the date of actual payment.”
Case Title: Sondipon Das vs Dr. Diwesh Kumar Bhagat and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 194
In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that an agreement to sell does not confer any titles or ownership rights in a property, rather, it only confers preferential rights to the person in the favor of whom the agreement is executed.
Justice Subhash Chand, presiding over the case, emphasized, “it is the settled law that agreement to sell does not confer any title, it confers only preferential right to the person in whose favour agreement to sell has been executed.”
The above ruling came in a civil miscellaneous petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the order of the trail court whereby the court allowed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed on behalf of the intervenor.
Case Title: 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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
Case Title: Banshi Dhar Shukla vs Union of India and Anr
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 202
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an individual seeking compensation after being acquitted in a criminal case. The court held that an acquitted accused cannot claim compensation as a human rights remedy, as detention before or during a trial does not constitute a violation of human rights.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “The major human rights treaties do not provide an explicit right to compensation for the acquitted accused, an acquitted accused in a criminal case cannot claim compensation as human rights remedy because detention before or during a trial does not violate their human rights. A criminal case accused is entitled to an acquittal, if the prosecution's evidence is too weak to support a conviction. More importantly, there is no indication that states compensate the acquitted accused because they are under a legal obligation to do so. The Court has no discretion in this matter.