Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 1 to 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 98Jharkhand High Court Quashes Prevention Detention Based On Station Diary Entries, Questions State For Not Lodging FIR If Crime Was Made OutCase Title: Ganesh Singh @ Nishant Singh v. The State of JharkhandLL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 1The Jharkhand High Court quashed a preventive detention order issued under Jharkhand Control of Crimes...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 1 to 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 98
Case Title: Ganesh Singh @ Nishant Singh v. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 1
The Jharkhand High Court quashed a preventive detention order issued under Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act against a man by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum based on certain station diary entries, while questioning the State as to what prevented it to first lodge an FIR.
The court pointed out that Station Diary Entries or Sanhas cannot be a ground for keeping a person in custody, especially when it has not led to any criminal case.
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Sharda Devi and ors
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 2
The Jharkhand High Court, in its judgment delivered in a Miscellaneous Appeal, held that the average income of previous financial years cannot be the basis for computing compensation in motor accident claims.
Justice Subhash Chand observed, “The deceased was a Professor in Baldeo Sahu Degree College, Lohardaga, and was Head of Department of Philosophy. He was getting the salary along with other allowances just before the accident, in which, the death was caused. The basis of income would be the financial year of 2013-14; the average income of previous financial years cannot be the basis for computation of the amount of compensation.”
Case Title: Maya Ram v. Asha Ram & Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 3
The Jharkhand High Court in a recent ruling has emphasized that appointing a second Pleader Commissioner without assigning reasons for ignoring the report of the first Commissioner violates the provisions of Order 26, Rule 10(3) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and is to be condemned.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the case, criticized the lower court's decision, stating, “The practice of appointing a second Commissioner without formally recording objections to the first Commissioner's report without considering whether the first Commissioner's report should be superseded, or not is a practice which cannot be too strongly condemned. Reasons for superseding the first Commissioner's report must be recorded in writing by the Court.”
Case Title: Spencer Distilleries and Breweries (Pvt. Ltd.) vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 4
The Jharkhand High Court has closed contempt proceedings initiated against the state government's Secretary, Department of Excise and Prohibition after noting that its orders pertaining to statutory interest payable to the petitioner Spencer Distilleries and Breweries (Pvt. Ltd.) were complied with.
During the hearing on January 10 the counsel appearing for the petitioner company Shekhar Sinha said that now the statutory amount has been paid in favour of the petitioner and, as such, he does not want to press the instant contempt case as the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed.
Case Title: Motilal Agarwal vs Ram Babu Sharma and Ors
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 5
Setting aside an order of a district court allowing introduction of a death certificate as evidence in a property dispute, the Jharkhand High Court said that a death certificate issued years after the death, based solely on an affidavit, cannot be admitted as additional evidence if it lacks evidentiary basis and is inconsistent with the pleadings.
Presiding over the case Justice Subhash Chand held that, “Even if this document, which is public document issued on the individual information of the applicant/ defendant after the judgment and decree passed in the original suit, this public document itself cannot be taken on record because there is no pleading to that effect on record on behalf of the defendants in regard to the date of death of their mother Ramwati Devi and there is no plea that Ramwati Devi had not executed sale deed in favour of plaintiff prior to her death.”
Case Title: Satya Prakash Singh v. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 6
The Jharkhand High Court stated that an advocate is not liable to verify fake documents provided by a client for registration of a firm to evade tax.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary was dealing with a case where an advocate had moved a petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered under sections 406/420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 132 (1) (b)/131 (1) (e)/132 (1) (1) of Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (JGST).
In this case, the petitioner who is a tax practitioner facilitated GST registration of the co-accused. The allegation against the petitioner is that in connivance with the co-accused he has facilitated for registration of a proprietary firm on the basis of fake and vague documents to evade government taxes.
Case Title: Rites Ltd v. M/s Supreme BKB DECO JV
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 7
The Jharkhand High Court Bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary has held that the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be invoked for interfering with an interim order only in exceptionally rare cases.
Additionally, the court held that Arbitral Tribunals are not bound by the strict rigours of CPC and an amendment is permissible at any stage of the proceedings for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.
Case Title: Awadh Kishore Sahay vs. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 8
The Jharkhand High Court, in a recent judgment, has observed that in land acquisition cases, there is no distinction between the sum and sum without interest, and once the interest is included in the sum for which the Award is made, that cannot be segregated.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi presiding over the case, observed, “There is no distinction between the sum and sum without interest and it has been held that once the interest is included in the sum for which the Award is made that cannot be segregated, meaning thereby that once in the Award interest is added that cannot be segregated.”
Case Title: Rajani Kanta Patra v. Union Of India & Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 9
The Jharkhand High Court has held that an officer's good antecedents cannot be one of the grounds to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority, especially when the charges relate to misconduct.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary confirmed the disciplinary punishment awarded to a former Assistant Commandant of Central Industrial Security Force, Bokaro Steel Limited, who was found guilty of making caste-based remarks against an Inspector in his office.
Case Title: Bhudeo Choudhary vs MUKTA CHOUDHARY and ors
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 10
Recently, the Jharkhand High Court has held that abatement by necessary implication can allow a substitution petition even without a specific plea to set aside, provided the entire application makes out a case for such relief.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the case, observed, “In a case where the relief of setting aside of abatement has not been specifically claimed, the court may consider the complete application find out what is the prayer and if case is made out for condonation and for setting aside of abatement proceedings, the Court may condone the delay, may set aside abatement of the suit even without specific prayer.”
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Khatri @ Manoj Khatr and Anr vs Kumar Rohit Singh and anr
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 11
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that a commissioner as a pleader appointed by the court under Order XXVI Rule 10-A of the CPC cannot collect evidence on behalf of parties to a suit.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that the appointment of a commissioner is meant to elucidate matters in dispute and not to aid a party in establishing its claims.
Case Title: Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Panchi Oraon vs Ors
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 12
The Jharkhand High Court in a recent judgement had dismissed an appeal filed by an insurance company while reaffirming that in a motor accident compensation claim case, the onus lies upon the insurance company to prove contributory negligence
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the case, emphasized, “So far as the contributory negligence is concerned, no evidence was led and further the onus lies upon the insurance company to prove the same.”
Case Title: Ganesh Burman @ Ganesh Poddar vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 13
In a recent judgment, the Jharkhand High Court has held that the question of land ownership cannot be unilaterally determined by the executive authorities and a person in possession cannot be summarily evicted without due process.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan stated that under Article 300A of the Constitution, nobody can be deprived of their property except by the authority of law.
Case Title: Kuraisa Bibi and Ors vs Pushpa Devi and Ors
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 14
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the legal heirs of a deceased driver are entitled to compensation under the personal accident (PA) cover of an insurance policy, even when the driver himself was at fault for the accident.
The court ruled that a driver in such circumstances enters “into the shoes of the owner” and is eligible for compensation as per the PA coverage of the insurance policy.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the case, observed, “The insurance policy is available on record, wherein PA cover under Section-III for owner-driver (CSI) is said to be Rs. 2 lakhs, meaning thereby that insurance is there. It is not clear from that if only the owner is driving the vehicle, then only that clause will apply. It is in the form of owner-driver, meaning thereby, whoever is driving the vehicle, is entitled for and PA cover is there of Rs. 2 lakhs and if such a situation is there, certainly the deceased entered into the shoes of the owner.”
Case Title:M/s MECON Limited Versus M/s K.C.S. Pvt. Ltd.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 15
The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi has held that the court having jurisdiction over the seat of Arbitration would be entitled to entertain a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The court observed that “in the present case, the parties with consent have chosen further venue at Ranchi and at the moment the seat is determined, the Court is having jurisdiction of that seat and it will regulate the arbitration proceeding.”
It further observed that once the seat is chosen by the parties in terms of the contract/agreement, the court at that place will have jurisdiction.Merely because with consent of the parties, the Arbitrator has been appointed by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court, that cannot be a ground that Ranchi court is not having jurisdiction as Section 11 application is not decided by the Court, as has been held in the aforesaid judgments.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Verma v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd and Others
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 16
The Jharkhand High Court has held one cannot be denied reimbursement for expenses incurred to get treatment for mental health, ruling that excluding psychiatric treatment from medical reimbursement schemes violates the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
It was emphasized by the Court that the treatment of mental health is required to be treated on a par with physical healthcare and that no reimbursement policy can capriciously exclude psychiatric care.
Justice Ananda Sen, presiding over the case, held, “there cannot be any discrimination in respect of reimbursement of expenses made by a person suffering from physical illness and mental illness. Clause 6.3(i) of the CPRMS, which denies reimbursement of any expenses incurred by the member for psychiatric treatment is directly in conflict with various provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, especially Section 21(4) of the Act. This discrimination made in the CPRMS is not based on any intelligible differentia.”
Case Title: Mr. Mark Reidy vs The State of Jharkhand and anr
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 17
The Jharkhand High Court quashed summons issued to a Swiss resident in a criminal case, observing that in terms of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, the Investigating Agency is required to forward its draft request to Internal Security Division of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for its concurrence on seeking attendance of a person from contracting State.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary however noted that in the facts of the case, the Investigating Agency had directly approached the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for issuing summons, which could not be held to be in accordance with law. It thus also quashed the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner as he did not appear after being summoned.
Case Title: M/s. Castrol India Limited v. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 18
The Jharkhand High Court stated that retaining balance amount by department after the tax demand is reduced is violative of Article 14 & Article 265 of the constitution.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan observed that the department cannot retain the amounts deposited by the assessee pursuant to conditions imposed by the appellate authority for stay of the assessment order and contend that there is no necessity to refund the same.
Case Title: Kuldeo Sah @ Mithun Sah & Pappu Sah @ Pappu Kumar Sah vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 19
The Jharkhand High Court recently directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to provide the Aadhaar card details of trafficked minors to the investigating agency under a sealed cover.
The division bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava directed the UIDAI to provide the Aadhaar Card details of the trafficked minors overruling its objection under Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 which states that the Aadhar Card details cannot be provided directly to the investigating agency except an order passed by the Court order (not below the rank of District Judge) and an opportunity for the Aadhaar cardholder to be heard before disclosing such information.
Case Title: Limra Traders v. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 20
The Jharkhand High Court directed the state tax authorities to follow due procedure while passing adjudication orders.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan stated that “despite directions issued by the Court, it appears that State Tax authorities are continuing to conduct adjudication proceedings in utter disregard to the mandatory provisions of the Act and in violation of the principles of natural justice.”
Case Title: Mukund Murari Mahto vs Karishma Singh @ Kumari Mubi
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 21
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an interlocutory order granting interim maintenance, as no appeal can be filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against such orders.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the case, observed, “In view of above discussions when the provisions of Section 19 of the Family Court's Act are interpreted keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, it is clear that no appeal against an order passed as an interlocutory order can be filed under Section 19 of the Family Court's Act and in view of that the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.”
Case Title: Namita Bose vs Satyanarain Prasad Chourasia
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 22
The Jharkhand High Court has held that in eviction matters based on bona fide necessity, the landlord is the best judge to decide which of their properties is required to meet their needs, and the tenant cannot dictate alternative arrangements.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, while rejecting the tenant's plea that alternative premises were available, stated, “The law with regard to the eviction of tenant from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide need of landlord is well settled. The need has to be a real one rather than a mere desire to get the premises vacated. The landlord is the best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need. The tenant has no role for dictating as to which premises the landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction.”
Case Title: Manoj Jaiswal @ Manoj Saw @ Manoj Pd. Jaiswal vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 23
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the principle of parity cannot be mechanically applied in the case of bail applications, but should consider the factual situations and the role assigned to the accused.
The division bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar, presiding over the case, observed, “There is no dispute that the Principle of Parity is made applicable in the matter of bail also but while applying the Principle of Parity the factual aspect and nature of allegation from whom the parity is sought for needs to be examined.”
Case Title: Ganesh Kumar vs The State of Jharkhand and ors
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 24
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, cannot be imposed without first issuing notice to the officer actually responsible for the delay in furnishing information.
Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, setting aside a ₹25,000 penalty imposed on Ganesh Kumar, the then Additional Deputy Commissioner of East Singhbhum, said, “for the purpose of achieving the object of the Act and to maintain the provision of Section 20(1) by way of deterrent measure, a notice ought to have been issued to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, the present petitioner and the Circle Officer in order to assess that who is at fault.”
Case Title: The Mills Store Company Bombay Private Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand and ors
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 25
The Jharkhand High Court has held that where cancellation of a government auction is caused by the State's own delay in issuing mandatory environmental clearance, the bidder is entitled to seek refund of the earnest money and security deposit. The ruling affirms that no financial burden can be imposed on a party when the fault lies with administrative authorities and not the bidder.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Navneet Kumar observed, “…liberty which has been sought for by raising the issue for refund of amount of the Earnest Money and the Security Deposit is required to be given to the petitioners for its determination. Accordingly, these writ petitions are being disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to make individual representation to the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand with all details supported by relevant documents and if such representation will be filed, then the Secretary… will take a decision and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.”
Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹1.23 Crore GST Refund To Tata Steel Over ITC On Compensation Cess
Case title: Tata Steel Ltd v. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 26
The Jharkhand High Court has ordered Rs. 1,23,22,617/- GST refund to Tata Steel, whose largest steel plant is situated in State's Jamshedpur city.
The amount represented Input Tax Credit (ITC) on Compensation Cess paid by the company under Section 8(2) of the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 for purchasing its key raw material- Coal.
Case Title – M/s Bodhraj Construction v. Snehanshu Sinha
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 27
The Jharkhand High Court Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao has observed that 'competent authority' within the meaning of Section 3(l) of the Jharkhand Apartment (Flat) Owners Act, 2011 is an executive authority and not a quasi-judicial or judicial authority. Accordingly, pendency of some proceedings under the said Act would not preclude the court from appointing an arbitrator if there is a valid arbitration clause between the parties.
Case Title: Nirmala College vs .State of Jharkhand and ors
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 28
The Jharkhand High Court has held that under the first proviso to Section 57A(1) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000, the governing body of a minority-affiliated college must obtain prior approval from the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) before initiating disciplinary proceedings against a teacher.
It ruled that disciplinary proceedings carried out without such approval are invalid and that post facto approval cannot cure this defect.
Case Title: The State of Jharkhand Secretary and Ors vs Prabudh Nagar Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 29
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed state government's appeal against a single judge's decision which had quashed an executive order restricting a cooperative society from registering a land despite a civil court decree in the latter's favour which had attained finality.
In doing so the court said that the civil court decree will not be set aside merely because the State claims that there was a forgery in the revenue records. It thus imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the State.
Withholding Tax Refunds Without Justification Violates Section 55 Of JVAT Act: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: M/s. Castrol India Limited vs The State of Jharkhand and ors
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 30
The Jharkhand High Court has held that withholding tax refunds beyond the statutorily prescribed period without adequate justification, violates Section 55 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and deprives the taxpayer of rightful dues.
The Court ruled that the refund must carry interest from the date the excess demand was determined, and non-allocation of funds by the State cannot override this obligation.
Case Title: M/s. Bokna Raiyat Rojgar Committee vs The Union of India
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 31
The Jharkhand High Court has held that an appeal filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is not maintainable and the delay cannot be condoned beyond the limits expressly stated in the statute.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan held, “Even otherwise, since specific period has been enshrined in the statute itself, the same cannot be condoned. Thus, we are having no hesitation in holding that the petitioner Firm is not entitled for any relief on the ground of being lethargic in approach, inasmuch as, on the one hand, the petitioner did not file its return for a continuous period of six months and on the other hand, petitioner-Firm filed appeal before the appellate authority after a delay of almost 17 months which is admittedly beyond the period of three months for filing appeal as prescribed under Section 107 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017.”
Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs Lilmuni Madaiyan @ Lilmuni Madyan
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 32
The Jharkhand High Court has recently held that the liability of an insurance company cannot be negated solely on the ground that the claimants have furnished an incorrect policy number, particularly when the insurer fails to discharge its duty to produce the correct policy in support of its case.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the case, stated, “Merely providing a wrong policy number by the claimants, liability of the insurance company cannot be ruled out because the claimants are not supposed to know the exact policy number and they have gathered the same from somewhere and produced it before the learned Tribunal.”
Case Title: M/s. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited Versus State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 33
The Jharkhand High Court has held in a recent judgement that rejecting a refund claim for a statutory pre-deposit which has been made under Section 107(6)(b) of the GST Act, on the ground that the claim was filed after the 2-year limitation under Section 54(1), is legally unsustainable.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan stated, “There is no dispute to the effect that once refund is by way of statutory exercise, the same cannot be retained neither by the State, nor by the Centre, that too by taking aid of a provision which on the face of it is directory, inasmuch as, the language couched in Section 54 is 'may make an application before the expiry of 2 years from the relevant date.'”
Case Title: The State of Jharkhand vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 34
The Jharkhand High Court has recently dismissed a plea against the Caste Scrutiny Committee report through which the “Tamaria” caste has been accepted as a sub-caste of the Munda caste and therefore brought under the Scheduled Tribe category.
In doing so, the Court held that a writ petition filed by one department of the State against another department of the same State is not maintainable.
Case Title: Sitaram Goswami vs Shanti Devi and Ors
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 35
The Jharkhand High Court has clarified in a recent judgement that suspicion surrounding the execution of a will cannot rest on vague claims. The Court also said that the validity of a will cannot be questioned merely because the testator passed away shortly after its execution or because the Will lacks specific property descriptions.
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the case, stated, “What circumstances would be regarded as suspicious cannot be precisely defined or exhaustively enumerated. That inevitably would be a question of fact in each case. In any case mere absence of detailed description of property in the WILL cannot be regarded as a suspicious circumstance. Deposition of witnesses that the Testatrix was ill since last six months, and was not in a position to stir out of her home, is not supported by any documentary evidence of her treatment.”
Legal Heir Not Liable For GST Dues Without Proof Of Business Continuity: Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: Rishi Shangari Versus UOI
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 36
The Jharkhand High Court has recently held that tax liability under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, cannot be extended upon a legal heir in the absence of evidence showing that the heir continued the business of the deceased proprietor.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Rajesh Shankar while delivering the ruling clarified, “In the absence of any material referred to by the said respondent as to on what basis it is held that the petitioner was continuing the business in the name of his father's proprietary concern after his father's death in spite of the petitioner obtaining a fresh registration in his own name on 24.03.2018, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dt. 28.11.2022 is perverse, based on no evidence and cannot be sustained.”
Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 37
The Jharkhand High Court quashed an FIR against a public servant for assaulting and using caste-based abuse against a woman, stating that a person cannot be treated as an SC/ST member unless their caste/tribe is specifically included in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order or the relevant Presidential notifications.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary in his order held that in the absence of any material to show the informant belonged to a notified Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste, no offence under Sections 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act 1989 could be made out.
Case Title: Mohammad Sarfaraj Mirza v. State of Jharkhand and Others.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 38
The Jharkhand High Court has held that an appellate authority, while remanding a matter for fresh adjudication, should definitely set aside the impugned order and lay down clear timelines to prevent further delay in adjudication.
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the case, observed, “When a case is remanded for the matter to be decided afresh, it was incumbent on the part of the appellate court to have set aside the impugned order, which has not been done in the present case.”
Case Title: Namita Raje v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 39
The Jharkhand High Court has found that three answers in the revised answer key released by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) for the preliminary examination to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) were demonstrably incorrect and contrary to established law and precedent.
Referring to Supreme Court's judgement Kanpur University & Ors v. Samir Gupta & Ors, a division bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan in its order said thatnormally the key answer should be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held as wrong by inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization.
Case Title: C.I.S.C.-S.R.S.C. (Joint Venture) Versus Central Coalfields Limited
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 40
The Jharkhand High Court bench of Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan has held that interest at the default rate of 18% under unamended Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be claimed when the arbitral proceedings commenced before the 2015 amendment and the parties have not agreed to apply the amended provision. In such cases, the unamended provision applies, and only the interest specified in the award is payable. The default rate of 18% applies only if the award is silent on interest component.
Case Title : Rabindra Prasad v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 41
The Jharkhand High Court bench comprising Justice Ananda Sen held that under the ACP/MACP Schemes, financial upgradation must be granted on completion of regular service without insisting on additional qualifications. Further the subsequent government resolutions cannot retrospectively affect accrued service benefits.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpu vs M/s New Punjab Motor Transport
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 42
The Jharkhand High Court has quashed an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Circuit Bench, Ranchi, after finding that it was solely based on a precedent that had been overruled by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal had earlier deleted the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the payments in question had already been made.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar ruled that the Tribunal's reliance on the Allahabad High Court's decision in CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. was no longer legally tenable in view of the Supreme Court's subsequent judgment in Palam Gas Service v. CIT.
Case Title: State of Jharkhand vs Pruan Prasad Guria
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 43
Upholding Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's order awarding compensation in a fatal accident caused by a police vehicle, the Jharkhand High Court asked the state government in its capacity as 'welfare state' to consider amending the law to make the government/insurer liable for a "fixed sum" in road accidents resulting in injuries or death.
The Court also ruled that government was liable for the driver's negligent driving which had resulted in the death of two young men and upheld the compensation of Rs. 3,48,880 each to the kin of the two deceased men along with interest @ 7.5% per annum till its realization.
Case Title: Arun Kumar vs Raj Soni Devi
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 44
The Jharkhand High Court has held that desertion as a ground for divorce cannot be established merely through physical separation unless it is proven that the separating spouse intended to permanently sever the marital relationship.
The Court, while upholding the Family Court's decision denying divorce, emphasised that desertion requires both the fact of separation and the intention to end cohabitation for good, and found that the husband in the case failed to discharge this legal burden.
Case Title: Ranchi Municipal Corporation Versus M/s A2Z Waste Management (Ranchi) Limited
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 45
The Jharkhand High Court bench of Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Rajesh Shankar has held that when two claims decided in an arbitral award are mutually unrelated, the court, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), cannot set aside the entire arbitral award solely because a fraud was committed concerning one of the claims, while the other claims are based on entirely different reasoning and grounds.
Case Title: Jayanti Devi Urmaliya vs Union of India Through Secretary
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 46
Partly allowing a plea by the widow of a deceased CISF personnel–dismissed from service for misconduct, the Jharkhand High Court observed that it would be improper to relegate the widow to the disciplinary proceeding and that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate when the gravest charge was not proved.
Justice Ananda Sen was hearing a plea of one Jayanti Devi Urmaliya, who had challenged the dismissal of her late husband, Santosh Urmaliya, from the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). She also sought direction for the release of family pension and other dues.
Case Title: Jharkhand Private School Association vs. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 47
The Jharkhand High Court has partly allowed a batch of writ petitions challenging the Jharkhand Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (First Amendment) Rules, 2019.
The Court struck down as unconstitutional the provisions requiring private schools to pay application and inspection fees and to maintain a security deposit for recognition, holding that the State lacked legal authority under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. However, the Court upheld the rules relating to land ownership or long-term lease and minimum land area requirements for private schools.
Case Title: M/s Sri Ram Stone Works v. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 48
The Jharkhand High Court stated that sale of goods at concessional rates alone does not constitute a sham transaction.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan observed that “notices under Section 61 have been issued to assessees and instead of pointing out discrepancies in the returns filed by assessees, the competent officer has embarked upon an exercise of comparing the price at which assessees have sold their stone-boulders/stone-chips with that of prevalent market price and, thereafter, accordingly, issued notices to assessees asking them to show cause as to why appropriate proceedings for recovery of tax and dues be not initiated against them.”
Case Title: Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association (CNDTA) and others v. State of Jharkhand and others
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 49
Referring to a 20-year old Supreme Court decision which struck down an amendment made by Rajasthan government to the Registration Act empowering the state to set aside any registration on the ground of public policy, the Jharkhand High Court struck down a similar provision introduced by erstwhile Bihar government.
The high court was considering a plea challenging vires of the Section 22-A of the Registration Act introduced by Bihar government through the 'Bihar Amendment 6 of 1991' which was subsequently adopted by Jharkhand government and the consequential 2015 notification.
Case Name: Faiyaz Ahmad & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 50
A Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava held that a candidate cannot challenge a policy change made prior to the appointment as no vested or accrued right arises from an advertised pay scale unless an appointment letter is issued.
Case Name : M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors v. Kailash Chandra Mukherjee
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 51
The Jharkhand High Court bench comprising of Justice Rajesh Shankar, while deciding an appeal held that an employer cannot deny pension benefits on the ground of insufficient service period or contribution if the delay in reinstatement following a tribunal award was due to the employer's own fault.
Case title: Sandip Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 52
The Jharkhand High Court has made it clear that an order raising GST demand cannot be saved even if it is properly authenticated by the issuing authority, if the show cause notice preceding it was not signed.
A division bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Rajesh Shankar was dealing with a Petitioner's grievance that Form GST DRC-01A issued to him under section 73(1) of the Jharkhand GST Act was not signed by the authority.
Case Title: X vs. Y
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 53
The Jharkhand High Court enhanced the permanent alimony awarded by the family court a woman to Rs. 90,000 p.m.–including Rs. 40,000 for maintenance of her minor son who suffers from autism, rejecting the husband's argument that she was self sufficient observing that she can't do a permanent job in view of her son's condition.
In doing so the court also took note of the husband's job observing that he earns Rs. 2,31,294 per month while also remarking that autism, which is incurable, requires treatment carrying "huge expenditure on a regular basis".
Case Title: X v/s Y
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 54
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a claim of spouse's mental illness as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 must be backed by "cogent, tangible and reliable evidence."
A division bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar observed that in the absence of documentary proof such as a psychiatrist's opinion or records of continuous treatment, mere allegations cannot justify the dissolution of marriage.
Case Title: Surendra Das & Anr. v. Anita Das & Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 55
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that a widowed daughter-in-law and her minor children are entitled to claim maintenance from her father-in-law and brother-in-law under Sections 19 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), provided they are unable to maintain themselves and the in-laws are in possession of coparcenary property.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar thus dismissed the Appeal preferred by the father-in-law and brother-in-law against a family court directing them to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹3000 to the widow, and ₹1000 each to her two minor children.
Case Title: Binod Kumar Mahto & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 56
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that pay protection or the counting of past service for pensionary benefits does not entitle a government employee to claim seniority in a different service/cadre to which they shift to voluntarily.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar referred to Supreme Court's decision in Director of School Education v. A.N. Kandaswamy, wherein it was held that merely because the past services were counted for the purpose of protecting the “pay” and awarding selection or special grade, it cannot be said that employee concerned continued to belong to the same old cadre.
Case title: State of Jharkhand v/s Sukhlal @ Prabir Murmu @ Pravir Da @ Pravil Da @ Harendra Da @ Sanat Da @ Marang Da @ Amrit and Sanatan Baski @ Tala Da AND Batch
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 57
Jharkhand High Court's division bench has delivered a split verdict on a referral from the trial court which awarded death sentence to two men alleged to be naxalites, in respect of a 2013 attack on a police team which resulted in the death of Pakur's Superintendent of Police at the time and five other police personnel.
While Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay acquitted the accused observing that the prosecution had failed to prove its case, Justice Sanjay Prasad upheld the trial court's death sentence.
The bench in its 197 page judgment, delivered the spilt verdict while hearing a death sentence referral as well as appeals moved by the two accused individually challenging the death penalty.
Jharkhand High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking SIT Probe Into BJP MP Dhullu Mahto's Assets
Case Title: Somnath Chatterjee vs State of Jharkhand & Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 58
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe allegations of disproportionate assets and benami properties against the BJP MP from Dhanbad, Dhullu Mahto.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar held that the petition was not maintainable, stating that similar allegations had already been examined and rejected as not constituting a genuine public interest matter.
Case Title - Agniva Sarkar vs Union of India and others
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 59
The Jharkhand High Court on Friday termed it as 'really disturbing' and 'unfortunate' that an investigation officer had issued summons to a defence lawyer in connection with a case wherein he represented the accused.
Taking strong exception to a summons issued to a Dhanbad-based advocate [Agniva Sarkar] under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1996, a bench of Justice Ananda Sen said that prima facie it appeared to be an attempt to extract details of privileged communication.
Case Title: Ganesh Prasad Gupta & Anr. v. Manoj Kumar Gupta & Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 60
The Jharkhand High Court has recently dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, holding that a challenge to earlier orders passed in a civil title suit could not be revived through repeated petitions once those orders had attained finality.
The Court said in its Order that the petitioners had themselves invited the situation by failing to appear and file their written statement in time.
Case Title: Prabodh Kumar Tiwary v. Rakesh Kumar Tiwary & Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 61
The Jharkhand High Court has held that an amendment to pleadings at the appellate stage cannot be allowed when the party seeking it fails to offer strong reasons for the delay and does not carry out the earlier permitted amendment during trial.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the case, observed that Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC confers a discretionary jurisdiction on the Court exercisable at any stage of the proceedings to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just.
Case Name : Surendra Nath Mahto & Ors vs State of Jharkhand & Ors
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 62
The Jharkhand High Court bench comprising Justice Deepak Roshan held that temporary employees who have rendered over 15 years of continuous service on sanctioned posts with regular pay are entitled to pension under Rule 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (as adopted by State of Jharkhand).
Case Details: Mausam Kumar Singh vs Sahil Ansari
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 63
The Jharkhand High Court has awarded Rs.20 Lakh as compensation to be paid by BIT Mesra, Polytechnic College, to the parents of a 3rd semester student, who was allegedly subjected to casteist slurs in the name of Harijan/Dalit and multiple violent assaults leading to his death.
Terming the incident as a "brutal assault", Justice Sanjay Prasad came down heavily on the College over their negligent attitude and poor administration, including their failure to maintain required discipline which resulted in the tragic death of the student.
Case title - M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd., vs I.S.D.S. Private Limited and others
LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 64
The Jharkhand High Court has held that in the State of Jharkhand, where the pecuniary value of a commercial dispute is between ₹3 lakh and ₹1 crore, a Civil Judge (Senior Division) designated as a Commercial Court has the jurisdiction to try a trademark infringement suit.
A Bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad held so while allowing a commercial appeal filed by M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. against a 2024 order of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Jamshedpur, directing the return of the plaint for presentation before a court having jurisdiction.
Case Name : Pramod Kumar Sinha v. Chairman, Coal India Ltd. & Ors
LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 65
The Jharkhand High Court bench comprising Justice Deepak Roshan held that prematurely retiring an employee during pendency of departmental enquiry on disputed records, without following due process, amounts to misconduct by the officers as it prejudices the employer's interest.
Case Title: Biren Poddar v. General People of Locality of Hindpiri [Probate Case No. 01 of 2012, Jharkhand High Court]
LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 66
The Jharkhand High Court has held that once probate is granted along with a copy of the Will annexed, it conclusively proves the appointment of the executor and the valid execution of the Will. The Court reiterated that in probate proceedings, the only issue for determination is the genuineness and due execution of the Will, and not questions relating to the title or existence of property.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a petition filed under Section 276 read with Section 300 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, by Biren Poddar, seeking probate of the last Will and testament of late Sitaram Lohia dated 07.04.2008. The Will had appointed Binod Poddar and Biren Poddar as executors. During the pendency of the proceedings, Binod Poddar passed away, and Biren Poddar continued as the sole executor.
Case Name : Uma Ram vs M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors
LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 67
A Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that correction of date of birth in service records cannot be claimed as a matter of right, even if supported by genuine documents like a Matriculation Certificate, particularly when such request is made after an inordinate delay (over two decades) and near the date of retirement.
Case Name : Ranchi University vs Shanti Devi & Ors
LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 68
A Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that mere pendency of criminal proceedings without conviction cannot be a ground to withhold pension, gratuity, or leave encashment as they are statutory rights of the employee.
Case Name: R.K. Construction Private Limited v. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 69
The Jharkhand High Court division bench comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed that the purpose and the object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, would stand defeated if there are delays in the execution of the Arbitral Award.
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 417 of 2023
LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 70
The Jharkhand High Court has clarified that while Section 397 of CrPC allows both the Sessions Court and the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction, litigants should ideally approach the Sessions Court, which is the first forum at the first instance.
The court said that only in rare and special circumstances should the High Court be approached first in revision jurisdiction.
Case Title: Triveni Engicons Private Limited v. The State of Jharkhand and others and batch
LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 71
The Jharkhand High Court has struck down the levy of “Composition User Fee” (CUF) by the State Government on mechanical vehicles transporting minerals weighing more than 9 tons under the Jharkhand Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Amendment Rules, 2021 (2021 Rules) and its subsequent amendments, as unconstitutional and ultra vires the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 (Tolls Act).
Subsequent amendments included amendments introduced by the Jharkhand Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Amendment Rules, 2022 (enhanced CUF) and the Jharkhand Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Amendment Rules, 2025 (doubled CUF to Rs.1200).
Case Number: A.B.A. No. 5362 of 2025 and another
LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 72
The Jharkhand High Court has come down heavily on an advocate who, while arguing an anticipatory bail in a land grabbing case, had argued in “loud speech” in the presence of other lawyers present in Court and had “threatened the Court to pass the order and he will go to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”
Noting that the conduct of the advocate, Rakesh Kumar, was discernible and warranted initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against him, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi stated,
"In the light of above and seeing the conduct of the Advocate-Mr. Rakesh Kumar, if he will be allowed to go scot free, message will go in the society that any thing can be stopped to be delivered by a Judge for if such type of hooliganism is made in the open Court. It is a case where attempt was made to hinder or obstruct the due administration of justice in Court and such type of interference amounts to scandalizing the Court itself, this scandalizing might manifest itself in various ways but in substance it was an attack on Judge, causing unwarranted and defamatory aspersion. Such conduct must be punished as contempt. The foundation of the judiciary is the trust and the confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. This is not a question of particular Single Judge. This is attack on the entire judiciary by a practising advocate.”
Case Title: Pintu Kumar v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 73
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the recruitment for the post of Grameen Chowkidar has to be made district-wise and not beat-wise, adding that a chowkidar are usually to be posted within their residential beat area however they can be transferred to another area if reasons are cogent.
The Court also said that the requirement for a candidate to be a resident of a particular beat is not mandatory but only directory, which means that authorities should try to post candidates in or near their residential beat, but this cannot decide the entire selection.
Case Title: Deepak Prakash v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. [Cr.M.P. No. 2652 of 2020]
LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 74
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a political statement by the President of a State Unit of a national political party expressing confidence that his party will form the government in the State cannot be equated with exciting disaffection against the government established by law.
The Court observed that such statements are part of normal political discourse and do not meet the threshold required for offences under Sections 124A, 504, or 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Number: A.B.A. No. 5595 of 2025
LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 75
The Jharkhand High Court has explained that Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)— which provides for anticipatory bail, is limited in scope, as opposed to Section 483, which provides for regular bail and is unlimited in scope, in as much as Section 482 does not envisage a revival of “reasons to believe” or apprehension of arrest once an earlier application of anticipatory bail has been rejected.
In this regard, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi stated,
“Upon making a close survey of the section 482 of the BNSS, there could be no slim doubt that the words and languages employed in the Section do not even remotely foreshadow that application for anticipatory bail, could be harvested as there could be no revival of “reasons to believe” of apprehension of arrest in the subsequent application when the earlier application has suffered rejection.”
Case title: Rakesh Kumar v/s The State of Jharkhand and others
LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 76
The Jharkhand High Court quashed adverse remarks made against an advocate who had, while arguing an anticipatory bail matter last month, used "loud speech" and had "threatened the court to pass the order" stating that he will approach the Supreme Court challenging the same.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi in his September 25 order had observed that this was a case where an "attempt was made to hinder or obstruct the due administration of justice in Court" and such type of interference amounts to "scandalizing the Court itself" adding that it was "attack on Judge" which must be punished as contempt.
Case Name : Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad & Anr. Vs. Dr. Praveen Kumar
LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 77
A Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that appointees selected pursuant to advertisements issued prior to 01.01.2004 are entitled to the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme, even if their actual appointment or joining occurred after the introduction of the New Pension Scheme.
Case Name : The State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Meena Kumari Rai
LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 78
A Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai held that the capital punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to charges relating to procedural lapses, casualness in duty, lack of interest in work and harassment of subordinates.
Case Name : Central Coalfields Limited & Ors. Vs. Sunita Devi
LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 79
A Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that if compassionate appointment is denied then employer must grant the monetary compensation from date of application for the compassionate appointment.
Case Title: M/s Nishant Roadlines v. Union of India & Ors.
LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 80
The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the decision of the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) refusing environmental clearance (EC) to a proprietorship firm for stone mining in the Saranda forest's no-mining zone.
The Court held that the “Management Plan for Sustainable Mining in Saranda and Chaibasa of Singhbhum District, Jharkhand,” framed in 2018, applied to the entire forest area irrespective of the type of mineral and that permitting stone mining in a conservation or no-mining zone would defeat the purpose of forest preservation.
Case Title: Ram Prasad Singh & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
LL Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 81
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the benefit of the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme cannot be limited only to those medical officers who had approached the court earlier, but must also be extended to all similarly situated persons within the same cadre.
Justice Ananda Sen, presiding over the case, observed, “Once a particular date has been fixed, all the persons who come within the zone of consideration must get the same benefit. The Judgment which declares that the cut-off date is bad, it is not in personem and rather it is in rem… When the particular policy has been revived, all the persons, who are within the zone are entitled to get the benefit of the policy, no matter whether they have approached the Court or not.”
Case Title: M/s Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited vs Jay Prakash Singh
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 82
In Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Jay Prakash Singh, a single-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Justice Deepak Roshan held that 'consent' under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act (IDA) need not be explicit and that implicit consent of the other parties is sufficient. In this case, the Labour Court had ruled in favour of the respondent-workman and debarred Alembic Pharmaceuticals from being represented by an advocate before it.
Case Title: Binod Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand and Others
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 83
The Jharkhand High Court has recently observed that not disclosing a pending criminal case while filing a PIL, even if the petitioner was later acquitted, shows lack of good faith.
A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice T.S. Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar dismissed a Public Interest Litigation alleging irregularities and illegalities in the allocation and utilization of development funds. The Court held:
“39. Evidently, even though the petitioner has claimed to have filed this petition in public interest, but he has not disclosed and has rather deliberately withheld his complete credentials and interest as is mandatorily required under Rule 4 of the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010. The petitioner was required to disclose the criminal case that was admittedly pending against him at the time of filing of the petition. The mere fact that he has been acquitted later on is of no consequence.”
Case Title: Mohit Deora v. Union of India
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 84
The Jharkhand High Court recently observed that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), with its twin conditions, “turns the principle of bail is the rule and jail is the exception on its head.”
Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad made this observation while denying bail to an accused allegedly involved in the creation of fake companies for passing on ineligible input tax credit by issuing fake GST bills without any actual supply of goods or services. The petitioner, the son of the main accused, was said to be part of the conspiracy and one of the beneficiaries of the proceeds of crime generated by his father.
Case Title: R.S. Education Foundation Pvt Ltd and Ors v. State of Jharkhand and Ors
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 85
The Jharkhand High Court, in a significant judgment, held that since there is an irreconcilable conflict between the Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Act and the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, the Panchayati Raj Act must prevail. The Court observed that the inconsistent provisions of the Regional Development Authority Act stand impliedly repealed to the extent they conflict with the Panchayati Raj Act, 2001.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Deepak Roshan was dealing with a batch of writ petitions where the petitioners had purchased parcels of land in Ranchi, constructed new buildings after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat, and completed the construction. Several years later, proceedings were initiated against them questioning the legality of the construction on the ground that no prior approval had been obtained from the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (RRDA). The RRDA subsequently directed demolition of the building.
Case Title: M/s. Maa Kalyani Electrical Vs. Union of India & Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 86
The Jharkhand High Court held that once an appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit of the Service Tax amount, the Appellate Authority does not become functus officio and was competent to decide the appeal on merits if the mandatory condition of pre-deposit of 7.5% of the Service Tax amount was subsequently complied with by the assessee.
A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice and Justice Rajesh Shankar, stated that the appeal at the earlier occasion was dismissed solely on the ground that the writ petitioner had failed to make the pre-requisite mandatory deposit of 7.5% of the duty amount before filing of the appeal and not on merits and this has been specifically noted in the order dated 10.01.2023. Therefore, once the appeal had not been decided on merits but had, in fact, not been entertained, there was no question of the Authority of having become “functus officio” after the deposit of 7.5% of the duty amount as alleged by the writ petitioner.
Case Title: Md. Akil Alam v. Tumpa Chakravarty
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 87
The Jharkhand High Court has held that once parties marry under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the provisions governing restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 apply in full, irrespective of the personal laws they otherwise follow.
The Court rejected the husband's contention that, being a Muslim, he was entitled to marry up to four women and that his wife's departure from the matrimonial home was therefore unjustified.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar observed that restitution of conjugal rights was not merely creature of the statute, and that such a right is inherent in the very institution of marriage itself.
Case Title: Amit Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 88
The Jharkhand High Court has refused to grant bail to Amit Gupta (applicant), who was accused of coordinating 135 shell companies allegedly to generate fake invoices, irregular Input Tax Credit (ITC), and fraudulent e-way bills, causing a purported loss of over Rs.522.91 crores to Government exchequer.
As the applicant had miserably failed to satisfy the Court that reasonable grounds existed for believing that he was not guilty of the alleged offences, and in light of the “sophisticated modus operandi employed” by the organised syndicate in commission of the offences, Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad held,
“…the allegations levelled against the applicant are of an extremely grave and serious nature, striking at the very foundation of the country's economic and financial system. They pertain to fraudulent transactions running into hundreds of crores of rupees, executed through a complex and deliberate layering of illicit funds, and culminating in the acquisition and projection of properties derived from such tainted sources as untainted assets. The applicant's activities have been found to be indispensable to the layering and integration stages of the laundering process, involving multiple shell companies and bank accounts under his de facto control. Thus, the magnitude of the fraud, its organized nature, and the systematic siphoning of funds, the present case strikes at the core of the country's economic and financial fabric. The fraudulent availment and passing of fake ITC not only caused direct financial loss to the Government but also undermined the sanctity of the GST regime, which is based on self-declaration and trust.”
Case Title: Upendra Yadav @Bhupendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 89
The Jharkhand High Court recently clarified that once the Advisory Board has approved a preventive-detention order and the State Government has issued a confirmatory order, no further approval of the Board is required for subsequent extensions.
A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai made these observations while dismissing a writ petition challenging an order of preventive detention made under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. The petitioner had been detained as an “anti-social element” under Section 12(2) of the Act, and his detention was periodically extended in three-month intervals. He argued that he did not fall within the statutory definition of an “anti-social element” and that the extensions were illegal as they were issued without fresh Advisory Board approval.
Cause Title: Shree Kumar Lakhotia v. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 90
The Jharkhand High Court recently held that the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge and the inherent powers of the High Court operate concurrently, and invoking one does not bar recourse to the other. However, as a matter of judicial discipline, the High Court will ordinarily refrain from exercising its inherent powers when an equally efficacious remedy before the Sessions Judge is available.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the SDJM, Ramgarh's order refusing to discharge the petitioners in M.C.A. No. 2358 of 2024, arising from offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.
Case Title: Hemant Soren v. Directorate of Enforcement
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 91
The Jharkhand High Court recently allowed Hemant Soren's application seeking exemption from personal appearance in a Section 174 IPC case, holding that his role as Chief Minister and the minor nature of the offence did not warrant requiring his personal attendance.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary was hearing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking to set aside the order of the trial court by which the petitioner's application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for exemption from personal appearance had been rejected.
Case Title: Jyoti v. Sri Raja Nand Chaudhary
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 92
The Jharkhand High Court recently held that Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act must be read in conjunction with Section 13, and that the welfare of the child remains the primary consideration even though the father is designated as the natural guardian. The Court set aside the Family Court's order directing a “shared parenting arrangement” and granting custody to the wife.
A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai was hearing an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act against the judgment of the Family Court, which had dismissed the husband's application under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act seeking custody of the children and had instead permitted a “shared parenting arrangement”.
Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence Due To Split Verdict Between Division Bench
Case Title: State of Jharkhand v. Sukhlal @ Prabir Murmu and Others
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 93
Recently, the Jharkhand High Court commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment on the ground that a split opinion of the Division Bench on the question of conviction made it impermissible to affirm the capital punishment, even in the absence of any mitigating circumstances.
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary was hearing a death reference after a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court had delivered conflicting opinions. Previously, Justice Rangon Mukhopadhyay was of the view that the charge against the appellants had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and that they were entitled to acquittal, whereas Justice Sanjay Prasad held the appellants guilty of the offences charged and confirmed the death sentence.
Cause Title: Rabindra Prasad v. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 94
The Jharkhand High Court recently observed that delay in lodging an FIR in rape cases may be justified where it is shown that local residents first attempted to resolve the matter amicably within the village.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Rai was hearing an appeal against the order of the Trial Court whereby the appellant had been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
As per the prosecution, the victim was 14 years old. On 12.03.2002, she stepped out of her father's shop to relieve herself. At that point, a neighbour caught her, dragged her to a barren piece of land, and committed rape. When some persons started coming towards the spot, the accused fled. The victim later narrated the incident to her mother and aunt. However, an FIR was registered two days later, on 14.03.2002.
Case Title: X v. State of Jharkhand & Another
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 95
The Jharkhand High Court on Tuesday (December 16) granted anticipatory bail to a Squadron Leader serving in the Indian Air Force accused of receiving dowry and inflicting cruelty upon his wife, noting that the circumstances were exceptional and peculiar where liberty of an officer serving the country was at stake.
In doing so the court also noted that the petitioner was not absconding and was infact participating in the investigation.
Case Title: Francis Kujur v. State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 96
The Jharkhand High Court recently held that ex-servicemen engaged on a contractual basis under the State's Special Auxiliary Police Force (SAP) battalions cannot claim continuation of service beyond the tenure prescribed under the governing scheme.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ananda Sen was hearing a case wherein the petitioners were ex-servicemen appointed in terms of a scheme. The scheme did not provide for any age of superannuation. The Court clarified that in the absence of any provision regarding age of superannuation, contractual appointees cannot seek parity with regular government servants. It further held that intra-departmental correspondence or past illegal extensions granted to some personnel cannot override or amend the express terms of the scheme.
Case Title: State of Jharkhand v. R.K. Construction Private Limited
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 97
The Jharkhand High Court recently observed that the State is not an ordinary litigant seeking to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook. The Court directed that henceforth all litigation on the appellate or revisional side at the behest of the State must be initiated only after complying with the Jharkhand State Litigation Policy.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar was hearing a civil review petition filed by the State against an earlier order of the High Court directing the executing court to dispose of the execution proceedings expeditiously. The High Court noted that the impugned order had not even remotely touched upon the merits of the case and had merely issued directions to the executing court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, in line with settled legal principles.
Case Name : Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Sh. Bhrigu Nandan Sharma & Devendra Singh Rana
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 98
A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that beneficial pension scheme conversion is permissible even without an express option. An employee appointed prior to 01.01.1986 is deemed to have switched from the CPF scheme to the more beneficial GPF-cum-Pension Scheme if no positive option to continue under CPF was exercised by the prescribed cut-off date.