- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Jharkhand High Court
- /
- Jharkhand High Court Monthly Digest...
Jharkhand High Court Monthly Digest - October 2023
Bhavya Singh
1 Nov 2023 4:30 AM GMT
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...
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) 62
P.N. Pathak @ Pradip Narayan Pathak and Another vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 63
Niraj Kathuria vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 64
Umesh Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 65
PCIT Versus Manoj Kapoor 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 66
Rungta Mines Limited Versus State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 67
Pramod Shankar Dayal vs. The State of Jharkhand 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 68
Beldih Club Jamshedpur vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 69
M/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) 74
Judgments/Orders This Month
Case Title: Kuldeep Kumar Mahto vs. The State of Jharkhand and Anr
LL 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.”
Case Title: Janeya Sinke @ Jane vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 54
The 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.”
Case Title: The State Project Director v. National Printers, LPA No. 505 of 2019
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 55
The 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.
Case Title: Pinaki Das vs The State of Jharkhand
LL 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.”
Case Title: Pratul Shahdeo @ Pratul Nath Shahdev vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 57
The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Pratul Shahdev for allegedly abusing his former driver. Shahdev was booked under Sections 341, 342, 323, 325, 307 of the Indian Penal code and 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
It was alleged that he forcibly took away the car keys from his driver Mantu Kumar, locked the vehicle, and physically assaulted Kumar, causing injuries.
Case Title: Chhavi Ranjan vs Union of India
LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 58
The Jharkhand High Court last week rejected a bail petition of former Ranchi Deputy Commissioner, Chhavi Ranjan in the army land sale case. The former Deputy Commissioner had moved the high court seeking his release on the grounds of non-submission of the charge sheet within the stipulated time.
However, the court held that there was no irregularity on the part of the investigating agency in concluding the probe, as the charge sheet had already been filed, and hence, there was no valid ground for bail based on this argument.
Case Title: Adhunik Power & Natural Resources Ltd. Versus Central Coalfields Limited
LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 59
The Jharkhand High Court has directed the Tax Collected as Source (TCS) refund wrongfully collected despite verifying purchase of coal was used for generation of power.
The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the root cause lies in the illegality committed by the Revenue in compelling Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) in effecting TCS qua the transactions of purchase of coal which according to the petitioner was genuinely used in generation of power. Such TCS was affected by Respondent CCL even though appropriate Form 27C was issued by the Petitioner with a verification that the goods so purchased would be used for the purposes of generation of power.
Case Title: Rajeev Kumar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 60
In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a proprietorship firm engaged in civil contract work, challenging an Order-in-Original (OIO) passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central GST & CX, Ranchi.
The noted that the Assessee had been given ample opportunities to appear before the adjudicating authority. The court also highlighted that letters of personal hearing were sent to the Assessee at the address provided in their GST registration, as well as through email, however, these attempts were futile as the letters were returned undelivered and the Assessee did not respond to the emails.
Case Title: Anil Saw vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 61
The Jharkhand High Court recently granted bail to an accused in a POCSO case stating that no evidence of sexual assault was found in the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
The division bench comprising Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar observed, "It appears from the record that the statement of the girl, immediately after recovery, was recorded before the Magistrate. We after going through the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. has found that there is no reference of commission of sexual assault. However, in course of trial, the victim, who has been examined as P.W. 1, on the Court query has deposed that she was subjected to sexual assault 2-3 times."
Case Title: The State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Binod Kumar Lal and Others
LL Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Jha) 62
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the determination of whether a patient should be categorized as "indoor" or "outdoor" depends on the expert judgment of the attending doctors at the respective hospital. The Court has further emphasized that if the medical professionals decide to provide treatment without hospitalizing the patient as an "indoor patient," then denying reimbursement solely based on the treatment being categorized as that of an "outdoor patient" is not justifiable, and such a distinction in treatment expenditure cannot be considered a reasonable classification.
Case Title: P.N. Pathak @ Pradip Narayan Pathak and Another vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 63
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that merely asserting a claim of ownership is insufficient to secure protection from prosecution for encroachment of protected forest land, unless this claim is substantiated by a title document that can reasonably support the petitioner's legal right to the property in question.
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “The proprietary title can devolve by a method known to law such as inheritance, testamentary succession, registered sale deed or gift deed which needs to be specifically pleaded and proved. The source of title along with the chain of title needs to be disclosed with certainty. It is a trite law that no one transfers a better title than he himself has.”
Case Title: Niraj Kathuria vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 64
While revising the maintenance amount awarded to a woman in a matrimonial dispute, the Jharkhand High Court has opined that while it is the husband's moral obligation to provide maintenance to his wife, ensuring she can maintain a lifestyle similar to that of their matrimonial home, this does not justify burdening the husband to the extent that the marriage becomes a punishment for him.
Justice Subhash Chand observed, “Certainly, it is moral duty of the husband to pay maintenance to her wife so that she may also reside in the same status as would have been in matrimonial house; but it does not mean to squeeze milk from the husband that the marriage becomes felony for the husband.”
Case Title: Umesh Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 65
The Jharkhand High Court, in a recent ruling, has directed the State Government to reevaluate the application for premature release filed by a petitioner who had been serving a life sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and had been in custody for more than 26 years.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “In the case in hand, the case of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the learned Presiding Judge has not given opinion in favour of the petitioner and the said opinion has already been quoted hereinabove. Looking into the opinion given by the Presiding Judge, it appears that he has not fulfilled the guidelines which had been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naskar (supra). These guidelines include: (i) whether the offence affects the society at large; (ii) the probability of the crime being repeated; (iii) the potential of the convict to commit crimes in future; (iv) if any fruitful purpose is being served by keeping the convict in prison; and (v) the socio-economic condition of the convict's family.”
Case Title: PCIT Versus Manoj Kapoor
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 66
The Jharkhand High Court has held that interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act has to be charged on the assessed income and not on the returned income.
The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that, as per Section 234B, interest has to be charged on an amount equal to the assessed tax or, as the case may be, on the amount by which the advance tax paid as aforesaid falls short of the assessed tax. The term “assessed tax” has been defined in Explanation 1 of Section 234B (1). As per Explanation 1, “assessed tax” means the tax on the total income determined under sub-Section (1) of Section 143, and where a regular assessment is made, the tax on the total income determined under such a regular assessment is reduced by the amount provided in Explanation-I to Section 234B. Therefore, the interest under Section 234B has to be charged on the assessed income and not on the returned income of an assessee.
Case Title: Rungta Mines Limited Versus State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 67
The Jharkhand High Court has held that if the assessing authority is allowed to initiate repeated re-assessment proceedings against an assessee merely on the dictate of the audit party, there would not be finality of assessment. The assessee would have a sword of Damocles hanging over it in perpetuity.
The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that, as far as Sections 42(1) and 42(2) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act (JVAT Act) are concerned, the Legislature has deliberately inserted the non-obstante clause extending period of limitation, but the Legislature has not extended the period of limitation pursuant to an audit objection under Section 42(3).
Case Title: Pramod Shankar Dayal vs. The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 68
In a recent judgment, the Jharkhand High Court ruled against quashing criminal proceedings in a cheque dishonour case, emphasizing that directors' resignations from a company do not automatically absolve them of legal responsibilities particularly when the cheque was signed by them.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, "Looking into sub-section 2 of Section 141 of N.I. Act prima facie it appears that when the signature itself of these petitioners in the cheque they are deemed to be guilty of that offence and that can be only appreciated in trial. Further the petitioners have not disputed their signatures and the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners are required to be proved by leading evidence."
Case Title: Beldih Club Jamshedpur vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 69
The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that if an organization is covered under the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948, the number of employees working there is irrelevant, and such establishments are obligated to deposit employee subscriptions to contribute to the ESI fund. This would ensure the fulfillment of the Act's purpose, which is to provide beneficial measures in cases of sickness, maternity, employment injuries, and related matters, the Court said.
The Division Bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar emphasized, “The basic intent and object of the Act, 1948 is to introduce a health insurance for industrial worker for the purpose of providing certain benefit in the event of sickness, maternity and employment injury to all factories, including factories belonging to the Government other than seasonal factories. It was decided that there will be insurance fund which will be mainly derived from the contribution from employers and workmen. The contributions payable in respect of each employees will be based on the average wages which shall be in first instance payable by the employer.”
Case Title: M/s Amar Saw Mill v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 70
In a recent case where a Writ Petition was filed to challenge the revocation of a sawmill license, the Jharkhand High Court said the competent authority under the Bihar Saw Mills Act, 1990 is empowered to revoke a license and confiscate timber when a licensee is unable to provide a valid explanation for unaccounted wood, even if the licensee is simultaneously facing a criminal case related to the illegal transportation of wood without the required documentation.
Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, while placing reliance on the Apex Court’s judgement in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh reported in (2020) 12 SCC 733, reiterated “This Court after applying the said principle herein which is para materia to the confiscation proceeding as available under the Indian Forest Act wherein also apart from the criminal prosecution the power of dealing with the lisecne is also vested as would appear from the provision of Section 52 (5) of the Indian Forest Act.”
Case Title: Subodh Bara Babu @ Subodh Kumar Yadav vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 71
In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court emphasized the duty of police officers to conduct thorough inquiries before registering First Information Reports (FIR) against public servants accused of offenses committed during the discharge of their official duties.
Justice Subhash Chand held, “Herein it would be pertinent to mention that the accused is a public servant and while lodging F.I.R. against a public servant in regard to commission of any offence during discharge of his official duties, the police officer is duty bound to enquire into the matter before registering the F.I.R. The object behind this is only that there may not be frivolous or harassing allegations against any public servant with any ulterior motive or with any object of extortion.”
Case Title: Devendra Prasad Yadav v. Jharkhand Gramin Bank and Ors.
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 72
The Jharkhand High Court recently invalidated a 2015 termination order against a bank employee, criticizing the bank's inquiry report as "perverse" due to failure to provide pertinent documents to the petitioner-employee, who was accused of engaging in irregularities at the bank.
The court also deemed the punishment of dismissal from service as excessively severe. Justice Dr. S.N. Pathak observed, “Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties across the bar, it appears that punishment of dismissal is too harsh and disproportionate and as such, the same is fit to be quashed and set aside for the following facts and reasons:
(I) Admittedly, non-supply of relevant documents caused serious prejudiced to the petitioner. It has been admitted by respondents that some of the documents were not available with the respondents and as such, the same could not be supplied to the petitioner.
(II) When a particular document was relied upon by the delinquent, the same was to be served to him seeking his reply. In the case of non-supply of the same, the enquiry report would be termed to be perverse.”
Case Title: M/s LMB Sons Versus UOI
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 73
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the circulars or instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) are legally binding on the department, and their violation will make the actions of the respondent illegal and ex-facie bad in law.
The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the Department has violated Clauses 14.10 of Master Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CX dated March 10, 2017, and Clause 4.3 of the Instructions dated November 18, 2021, issued by the CBIC, which provide the manner in which the adjudication order has to be passed by the Respondent Department. Both the Instruction and the Circular provide that the adjudication order must be communicated within one month from the closure of the personal hearing.
Case Title: M/s Chotanagpur Diocesson Trust Asson. Versus UOI
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 74
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the Department is duty-bound and is mandatorily required to provide all material information or inquiry conducted on which reliance is being placed, along with supporting documents, to the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that supporting documents have not been provided to the assessee. The department did not provide the details uploaded on the Insight portal, along with the information gathered from the investigation wing and new information uploaded on the Insight portal, to the assessee.
