Jharkhand High Court Weekly Round Up: January 15 - January 21, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 9-19]Pratima Devi v Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 9M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v Anant Kumar Singh 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 10Vinod Shankar Jha vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 11Kunwar Ganjhu v Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 12Mithilesh Kumar Saw @ Mithlesh Saw & ors. vs The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 13Ram Kumar Ravi vs State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 14Raghubar Singh @ Raghuber Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 15Ashok Kumar Singh @ Ashok Singh @ A. K. Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 16State of Jharkhand Versus M/s. Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 17Principal Commissioner of Central G.S.T. & Central Excise, Ranchi Versus Bihar Foundary and Casting Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 18Vivek Narsaria Versus The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 19Judgements/Orders This WeekRailway Claims Tribunal Unjustified In Withholding Interest On Compensation From Date Of Accident Till Delay Condonation: Jharkhand High CourtCase Title: Pratima Devi v Union of India LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 9The Jharkhand High Court recently observed that the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in withholding interest on compensation payable to a bereaved family, for the period between the date of accident and the date on which the application for delay in making a claim before the Tribunal was allowed.Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed, “The Tribunal has awarded maximum amount of compensation as per Rules but withholding interest from the date of accident to the date of condonation of delay is not justified under law. Therefore, the appellants are held entitled for simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of accident i.e. 25/26.02.2018 till the date of actual payment.” Arbitration and Conciliation Act | Mere Violation Of Substantive Law By Itself Not A Valid Reason To Set Aside Arbitral Award: Jharkhand High CourtCase Title: M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v Anant Kumar Singh LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 10The Jharkhand High Court while dismissing an appeal directed challenging the Commercial Court's dismissal of a Section 34 Petition against an arbitrator's award, has held that a mere contravention of substantive law by itself does not constitute a valid ground for setting aside an arbitral award subsequent to the 2015 amendment in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act). The division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary observed, “As explained above, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that post-2015 amendment a mere contravention of the substantive law of India, by itself, is no longer a ground available to set aside an arbitral award.”State Can't Empower Registrar To Cancel Registered Sale Deed Sans Declaration By Court That It Is Vitiated By Fraud: Jharkhand High CourtCase Title: Vinod Shankar Jha vs State of Jharkhand & Ors.LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 11The Jharkhand High Court has held that unless there is a declaration by a civil Court that a deed is vitiated by fraud, a registered deed cannot be cancelled by the Registrar. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary set aside a Circular conferring such power on the Registrar and observed that, "The executive power of the State Government under Article 162 is coextensive with the legislative power of the State legislature. But, in the absence of any law, the State or its officers in the exercise of executive authority, cannot infringe citizen's rights merely because legislature has power to make law on the subject...registration of an instrument entails legal consequence affecting the legal rights of a citizen, and power of cancellation of such document cannot be permitted by an executive order, as it will be against the scheme of statutory provisions as contained in the Registration Act, 1908.” "Knowingly Associated With & Voluntarily Aided Banned Terrorist Organisation": Jharkhand High Court Rejects Bail Plea Of UAPA AccusedCase Title: Kunwar Ganjhu v Union of IndiaLL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 12The Jharkhand High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed against the rejection of bail by the Special Court to a UAPA accused allegedly connected to the banned terrorist organization CPI(Maoist).A division bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed, “The facts disclosed by the appellant were duly corroborated during course of investigation by way of statement of witnesses and thereby, prima facie the allegation as made against the accused/ petitioner appears to be true.”Clothes Torn During Free Fight Not Necessarily Offence Of 'Outraging Modesty' U/S 354 IPC: Jharkhand High CourtCase Title: Mithilesh Kumar Saw @ Mithlesh Saw & ors. vs The State of Jharkhand LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 13The Jharkhand High Court, in acquitting an accused under Section 354 IPC, has noted that the mere ...

Jharkhand High Court Weekly Round Up: January 15 - January 21, 2024

Bhavya Singh

Tags