Jharkhand High Court Monthly Digest - October 2023

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 53-74]Kuldeep Kumar Mahto vs. The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 53 Janeya Sinke @ Jane vs The State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 54 The State Project Director v. National Printers, LPA No. 505 of 2019 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 55 Pinaki Das vs The State of Jharkhand 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 56 Pratul Shahdeo @ Pratul Nath Shahdev vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 57 Chhavi Ranjan vs Union of India 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 58 Adhunik Power & Natural Resources Ltd. Versus Central Coalfields Limited 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 59 Rajeev Kumar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 60 Anil Saw vs The State of Jharkhand 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 61 The State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Binod Kumar Lal and Others 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 62P.N. Pathak @ Pradip Narayan Pathak and Another vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 63Niraj Kathuria vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 64Umesh Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 65PCIT Versus Manoj Kapoor 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 66Rungta Mines Limited Versus State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 67Pramod Shankar Dayal vs. The State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 68Beldih Club Jamshedpur vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 69M/s Amar Saw Mill v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 70 Subodh Bara Babu @ Subodh Kumar Yadav vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 71 Devendra Prasad Yadav v. Jharkhand Gramin Bank and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 72 M/s LMB Sons Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 73 M/s Chotanagpur Diocesson Trust Asson. Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 74Judgments/Orders This MonthNon-Consensual Sexual Intercourse Constitutes Rape Irrespective Of Assurances Of Marriage : Jharkhand High CourtCase Title: Kuldeep Kumar Mahto vs. The State of Jharkhand and AnrLL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 53 The Jharkhand High Court has refused to discharge a man who allegedly obtained consent of the victim on the pretext of marriage but forcibly committed initial sexual intercourse with her. Justice Subhash Chand observed, “As such from the very beginning he got the consent of the victim on the pretext of marriage. After assuring the victim to marry he came in courtship of the victim and for the first time on 21.09.2018 he forcibly committed rape of victim. As such it cannot be accepted that the offence of 375 which is punishable of under section 376 of I.P.C. is not made out against the petitioner.” Family's Prestige At Stake In Rape Cases, Delay In Filing FIR Not Fatal To Prosecution If Proper Explanation Given: Jharkhand High CourtCase Title: Janeya Sinke @ Jane vs The State of Jharkhand LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 54The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that delay in lodging FIR in cases of rape, where the dignity and reputation of the family are on the line, should not be considered fatal to the prosecution's case. Justice Subhash Chand observed, “Indeed, in case of a rape wherein the dignity and prestige of the family is at stake, the time is also taken in deciding whether to lodge the F.I.R. or not. As such delay in lodging F.I.R. in rape case cannot fatal to prosecution if there is cogent and trustworthy evidence.” MSEF Council’s Dismissal Order Under Section 18 Is Not An Award For Section 34 Of The A&C Act: Jharkhand High CourtCase Title: The State Project Director v. National Printers, LPA No. 505 of 2019 LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 55The Jharkhand High Court has held that an order passed by the MSEF Council dismissing a reference made under Section 18 of the MSMED Act as not maintainable, without conducting the conciliation or the consequent arbitral proceedings, is not an award which can be challenged under Section 34 of the A&C Act r/w Section 19 of the MSMED Act. The bench of Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Anubha Rawat Choudhary held that since the alternative remedy under Section 34 is not available in such a case, the aggrieved party can challenge the order of the MSEF Council directly in a writ petition. Chairman Not Vicariously Liable U/S 22-C Minimum Wages Act Without Implicating Company: Jharkhand High CourtCase Title: Pinaki Das vs The State of JharkhandLL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 56 The Jharkhand High Court has held that as per Section 22-C of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, when vicarious liability arises based on the averments in a complaint, the Chairman of the Company cannot be proceeded against without impleading and taking cognizance against the Company itself. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “In the present case, there is no direct allegation against this petitioner that he was personally liable for not displaying the notice of the Act and Rule in Hindi and English at the work spot. This allegation is directed against Company and the petitioner has been proceeded against as he held the position of head of Eastern Region.” ‘Ingredients Of SC/ST...

Jharkhand High Court Monthly Digest - October 2023

Bhavya Singh

Tags