Jharkhand High Court Annual Digest 2025

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 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.Average Income Of Previous Years No Basis For Compensation: Jharkhand HC Upholds Reliance On Deceased's Last Earned Salary In Accident CaseCase Title: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Sharda Devi and orsLL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 2The 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.”Appointment Of Second Commissioner Without Assigning Reasons Violates Order 26 Rule 10(3) CPC: Jharkhand High CourtCase Title: Maya Ram v. Asha Ram & Ors. LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 3The 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objections to the first Commissioner's report without considering whether the first Commissioner's report should be superseded, or not is a practice which cannot be too strongly condemned.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.”Jharkhand High Court Closes Contempt Case Against Excise Department Following Compliance Of Orders On Statutory Interest Payment To BreweryCase Title: Spencer Distilleries and Breweries (Pvt. Ltd.) vs The State of Jharkhand and OrsLL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 4The 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. Defendants Cannot Introduce Death Certificate As Additional Evidence Without Relevant Pleadings: Jharkhand HC Rules In Property DisputeCase Title: Motilal Agarwal vs Ram Babu Sharma and OrsLL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 5Setting 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.”Advocate Not Liable To Verify Fake Documents Provided By Client For Firm Registration To Evade Tax: Jharkhand High CourtCase Title: Satya Prakash Singh v. The State of JharkhandLL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 6The 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...

Jharkhand High Court Annual Digest 2025

Bhavya Singh

Tags