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

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...

Jharkhand High Court Rejects Intervenor's Plea To Join Property Dispute, Reiterates Agreement To Sell Confers Only Preferential Right, Not Ownership Title

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...

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

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...

Trial Courts Must Conduct Summary Inquiry Under O.22 R.5 CPC To Ascertain Legal Heirs In Disputes: Jharkhand High Court

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...

Jharkhand HC Reduces Interest Rate, Compensation By MACT To Family Of Deceased 50-Year-Old, Cites Excessive Award Under Conventional Head

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...

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

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...

Order 23 Rule 2 CPC| Limitation For Suit Instituted Afresh Applies As If Earlier Suit Was Never Filed: Jharkhand High Court

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...

Delayed Payment Of Gratuity, Employer Liable To Pay 10% Interest As Per Central Government Notification : Jharkhand HC

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. Background Facts The respondent employee was working for the...

Custody Orders Must Be Respected Unless Challenged And Modified By Higher Court: Jharkhand HC Directs Mother To Handover Son To Father

Highlighting that a custody order, unless challenged or modified by a higher court, must be respected, the Jharkhand High Court upheld a family court's order granting custody of a minor boy to his father. In doing so the high court further observed that there was nothing to suggest that the welfare of the minor was in any peril in the hands of the father. The Court interacted with the mother...

Jharkhand High Court Directs Mandatory Monthly Medical Camps For Elderly Prisoners With Cataract, Diabetes And Hypertension

The Jharkhand High Court has recently directed the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA)) to organize medical camps for inmates, particularly elderly prisoners suffering from ailments such as cataracts, diabetes, and blood pressure, alongside the monthly legal camps conducted in jails.The division bench comprising Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar directed,...

Jharkhand HC Stays Law Giving 75% Quota To Locals In Private Jobs, Says Employers Can't Be Prevented From Recruiting Based On Choice

In an interim order passed on Wednesday (December 11) the Jharkhand High Court stayed the operation of the state law mandating employment of 75% local candidates in private sector against the total notified vacancies. after observing that the law restricts the right of a private employer to recruit from the open market employees. The high court passed the order while hearing a writ...

Disputes Over Title Cannot Be Adjudicated In Suits U/S 6 Of Specific Relief Act: Jharkhand High Court

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...