Jharkhand High Court: Important Judgments Of 2022

NOMINAL INDEX

Rinki Kumari @ Anita Kumari v. Kundan Kumar @ Kundan Kumar Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 1

Arun Kumar Prajapati v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 2

Kayum Ansari v. Central Coal Feild Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 3

Ashok Kumar Singh & Ors v. the State of Jharkhand and Other Connected Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 4

National Insurance Company, Ramgarh v. Kulsum Khatoon & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 5

Aditya Isha Prachi Tirkey v. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 6

Phoda Devi & Ors. v. Ganesh Mahto, 2022 LiveLaw (Jhar) 7

Shekhar Suman v. The State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 8

Pushpendra Kumar Sinha v. The State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 9

Yogendra Saw and another v State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 10

Rita Devi & Ors v. Ms. Sima Devi & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 11

The State of Jharkhand & Anr v. The Information Commissioner & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 12

Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 13

Narendra Singh Tomar v. The State of Jharkhand and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 14

Bina Goswami v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 15

Union of India v. M/s Muva Industries Ltd. & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 16

Jai Prakash Narayan Sinha v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2022 Livelaw (Jha) 17

Binod Kumar & Ors v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 18

Smt. Vibha Sinha & Ors v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 19

Priyanka Devi v. Satish Kumar, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 20

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. East Singhbhum v. Babla Bagchi & Ors and other connected matters., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 21

The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Sita Chowdhury & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 22

Priya Malviya & Ors v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 23

Surendra Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 24

Ganesh Choudhary & Anr v. The State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 25

M/s Nkas Services Private Limited Versus State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 26

R.K. Transport Private Limited Versus The Union Of India Through The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise, Ranchi And Another., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 27

M/s Narsingh Ispat Limited Versus Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 28

Exide Industries Limited Versus The State Of Jharkhand And Others., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 29

Narsingh Ispat Limited Vs Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 30

Amitabh Choudhary v. The State of Jharkhand and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 31

Mrityunjay Kumar and others v. State of Jharkhand and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 32

Sanichar Kol v. The State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 33

M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Ranchi v. Smt. Kalwati Devi & Ors and other connected matters., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 34

Ugni Bibi v. Gobind Ram Hathampuria, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 35

Purshotam Gope v. The Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 36

Sudhanshu Ranjan @ Chhotu Singh v. The Union of India, through National Investigation Agency, New Delhi [Cr.M.P. No. 1300 of 2021], 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 37

Prabha Minz v. Martha Ekka and Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 38

M/s. Godavari Commodities Ltd. Versus The State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 39

M/s Mandhan Minerals Corporation Versus Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 40

Ram Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 41

Bindreshwar Ganju v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 42

Braj Kishore Sahu v. Tribhuwan Nath Sahdeo and other connected matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 43

M/s Modern Construction Company versus State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 44

Suresh Yadav Versus The State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 45

Kaushar Ansari v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 46

Md. Irshad Hussain & Ors v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 47

Gopal Malhotra v. The State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 48

Sukhlal Biruly v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 49

Chetan Adesera & Ors v. The State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 50

State Bank of India v. Premlata Devi & Ors and other connected matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 51

Birendra Prasad Roy v. Yogeshwar Mirdha & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 52

The State of Jharkhand v. Durga Soren and other connected matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 53

Ravi Kant & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw(Jha) 54

Ashish Kumar Rajwade v. the State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 55

Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 56

National Club Cooperative Society Ltd versus The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Adivasi Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 57

M/s Sri Ram Construction Versus UOI, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 58

Jharkhand Public Service Commission v Dr. Mrs. Vanmala Choudahry and anrs, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 59

Hazari Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 60

Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary and others v. State of Jharkhand and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 61

Jharia Petrol Supply versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 62

M/s. Juhi Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 63

Manbahala Mahto v. State of Jharkhand and others [W.P.(Cr.) No. 73 of 2018], 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 64

Rahul Gandhi v. The State of Jharkhand and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 65

S.K. Goel versus The State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 66

Nirmal Bhattacharya & Anr. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 67

M/s National Collateral Management Services Limited versus M/s Maa Diwri Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 68

Baby Chatterjee v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 69

Madhu devi v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 70

M/s Shyam Hardware Store Versus The State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 71

National Collateral Management Services Ltd v. Kunk Bihari Food Processing Pvt Ltd, Arbitration Application No. 31 of 2021, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 72

Roushan Kumar Chouhan Versus Commissioner of State Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 73

Sheo Shankar Prasad @ Shiv Shankar Prasad and anr v The State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 74

Rita Giri Versus The Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 75

Mohammad Sayeed Versus The State of Jharkhand and Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 76

Suresh Tirkey v The Governor With Connected Matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 77

Rakesh Kumar Singh Versus Union of India and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 78

Holy Cross Institute Hazaribagh and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 79

M/s R.K. Mineral Development Pvt. Ltd. v. Hindalco Industries Ltd. Arbitration Application No. 21 of 2019, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 80

M/s. AMI Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 81

Bluestar Malleable Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 82

Hari Shankar Agarwal v State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 83

M/s. Om Prakash Store Versus The State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 84

Urmila Devi v. State of Jharkhand and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 85

"A" v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 86

Madhu Sudan Mittal v. Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 87

Sana Rashid v. The State of Jharkhand and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 88

Suresh Kumar v. The Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement [A.B.A. No.4575 of 2022], 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 89

2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 90

Pooja Singhal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 91

M/s RSB Transmissions (India) Limited Versus Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 92

M/s Usha Martin Limited Versus Additional Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 93

Md. Sonu @ Sonu v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 94

M/s. Central Coalfields Limited versus Eastern India Powertech Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 95

Manish Kumar Sharma @ Manish Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 96

Afan Ansari vs. The State of Jharkhand and another [W.P. (Cr.) No. 536 of 2022], 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 97

REPORTS

Effective Date of Grant of Maintenance Would Be From The Date of Filing of Application, Not The Date of Judgement: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Rinki Kumari @ Anita Kumari v. Kundan Kumar @ Kundan Kumar Singh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 1

The Jharkhand High Court held that the claim for maintenance arises from the date of filing the application and not the date of judgment. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary referred to the Supreme Court Decision in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. and modified the impugned order, directing payment of monthly allowance from the date of application.

Punishment Part Of 'Reintegration Process' With Society: Jharkhand High Court Refuses To Reduce Sentence Of Juvenile Convict

Case Title: Arun Kumar Prajapati v. State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 2

While refusing to reduce the sentence of a man, convicted under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code when he was a juvenile, the Jharkhand High Court has observed that one of the prime concerns of the juvenile justice system is to ensure that the delinquent juvenile is also prevented from reoffending, thus the sentence period is a part of the reintegration and thus must be completed.

Order Cannot Be Said To Be 'Non-Speaking' If Party Did Not Raise Any Material Ground: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Kayum Ansari v. Central Coal Feild Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 3

The Jharkhand High Court held that to decide whether an appellate order is speaking or non-speaking, it has to be seen in light of the grounds raised in the appeal and not in isolation.

Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary held that when in appeal the party concerned does not raise any material ground, the order consequently passed cannot be said to be a non-speaking order.

'Discriminatory & Callous Approach Not Accepted In Welfare State': Jharkhand HC Quashes Blanket Order Halting Promotions Of Govt Employees

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Singh & Ors v. the State of Jharkhand and Other Connected Matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 4

Quashing a blanket order issued by the State against promotion of its employees, the Jharkhand High Court rebuked the State for its discriminatory and callous approach in employing the pick and choose method.

Murder Of Driver On Duty Not Proximate To Nature Of Employment, Can't Be Termed 'Occupational Hazard' Under Employees' Compensation Act: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: National Insurance Company, Ramgarh v. Kulsum Khatoon & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 5

The Jharkhand High Court set aside a decision of the Commissioner which awarded compensation for the murder of a truck driver on duty under the under the Employees Compensation Act.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed that accidental death during the course of employment is the sine qua non for the award of compensation under Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

However, it was of the view that murder of a driver on duty is not an accident that is proximate to his nature of employment. 

'Sympathy Has No Place In The Eyes of Law': Jharkhand High Court Denies Relief To Candidate Who Entered Wrong Roll No. In OMR Sheet

Case Title: Aditya Isha Prachi Tirkey v. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 6

The Jharkhand High Court refused to allow a candidate's request for re-evaluation of the OMR Sheet, observing that it will lead to 'manipulation'.

The aspirant had wrongly circled '6' instead of '8' while filling her roll-number, which led to the non-evaluation of paper 2 in the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination. Justice S.N. Pathak observed,

"If the contention is accepted regarding re-evaluation of the OMR sheet, it will amount to opening flood gate, and a blanket order has to be issued regarding entertaining of those candidates, who have made incorrect entry in violation of clause 4 of the terms and conditions as mentioned in the admit card. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in such matters."

One Can't Claim Title By Inheritance & Title By Adverse Possession Simultaneously: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Phoda Devi & Ors. v. Ganesh Mahto

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jhar) 7

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the primary condition for claiming adverse possession of immovable property is that the party claiming it must first acknowledge the title of the party against whom it is being claimed.

The pleas regarding claiming the title on inheritance and title by adverse possession are mutually inconsistent, Justice Gautam Kumar Chowdhary added.

JPSC| Scope Of Judicial Review In Matters Concerning Re-Evaluation Of Answer Key Is Narrow: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Shekhar Suman v. The State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 8

Refusing to interfere with the decision of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission on disputed answers of the 2021 Preliminary Test, the Jharkhand High Court observed that,

"Merely because the experts were not of the choice of the petitioner, the same cannot be a ground to doubt the decision of the subject expert committee."

Defence Of Accused Cannot Be Put Forth At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Pushpendra Kumar Sinha v. The State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 9

The Jharkhand High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against a public servant, where the trial has already begun noting that at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of the accused cannot be put forth.

Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary observed,

"That at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth."

RPF Officer Can Conduct House Search During 'Enquiry' Without Search Warrant As Per S. 165 CrPC: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Yogendra Saw and another v State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 10

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the officer of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) can also conduct a house search during an inquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act without a search warrant under certain conditions as laid down under Section 165 of the CrPC.

However, when such an officer is not enquiring into a case, he has to obtain the prior permission of the Magistrate of the area as envisaged in Section 10 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, the Bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary held.

Wages Under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 Includes Privileges That Can Be Measured Monetarily: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Rita Devi & Ors v. Ms. Sima Devi & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 11

The Jharkhand High Court has held that wages under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 include privileges or benefits that can be measured in terms of money, such as food allowance, etc. Justice Gautam Choudhary noted,

"From the above definition of wages, it is manifest wages includes any privilege or benefits which is capable of being estimated in money. It has come in evidence that Rs.80/ per-month was paid to the employee apart from monthly salary of Rs.3,500/-."

Jharkhand High Court Upholds ₹60K Fine Imposed On State Govt For Providing Late Info Under RTI Act

Case Title: The State of Jharkhand & Anr v. The Information Commissioner & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 12

While elucidating the distinction between Public Information Officer and Public Authority, Jharkhand High Court has upheld the fine of INR 60,000 imposed by the State Information Commissioner on the concerned department of the State government for not providing the information in time.

Stating that the Public Information Officer has to obtain the required information from the custody of the Public Authority (which is the state government here) and only then it is supplied further to the concerned information seeker, Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad has held that it is the Public Authority that has the obligation to main all records, as per Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, it has to pay the penalty for providing that information late.

Writ Court Can't Sit In Appeal Over Departmental Proceedings, Particularly When There Are Concurrent Findings On Charge: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 13

The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that the writ court does not sit in appeal against the orders passed in departmental proceedings, particularly when there are concurrent findings concerning the proved charges.

Remark On Rahul Gandhi: Jharkhand High Court Quashes Case Against Union Minister Narendra Singh Tomar

Case title: Narendra Singh Tomar v. The State of Jharkhand and another

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 14

The Jharkhand High Court quashed a criminal case against Union Minister of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Narendra Tomar for his alleged derogatory remarks against Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi.

The Court, at the outset, observed that for the offence under section 504 I.P.C. it is necessary that the insult should be delivered to the person insulted with the intention that he may be there and then provoked to commit an offence but where there is no such publication, no offence under section 504 I.P.C. is committed.

30% Medical Disability May Be Regarded As Functional Disability If Job Involves Movement: Jharkhand High Court In MACT Appeal

Case Title: Bina Goswami v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 15

The Jharkhand High Court has held that when the claimant is a nurse whose work involves considerable movement, then a 30% medical disability due to knee injury can be regarded as a functional disability of the claimant.

The Court added that simply because the claimant was on a contractual job will not disentitle her to the claim.

Railway Administration Has Statutory Right To Re-Weigh Consignment Before Delivery; Presence Of Consignor Not A Pre-Requisite: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Muva Industries Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 16

The Jharkhand High Court allowed an appeal under Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 observing that the Railway Authority has the statutory right to re-weigh the goods before delivery. Further, the same may be done in the absence of the consignor, as it will be highly impracticable to detain the consignment until the representative of the consignor arrives.

Lokayukta Can Only 'Recommend' To Disciplinary Authority To Take Action Against Erring Officer, No Statutory Power To Issue Direction: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: Jai Prakash Narayan Sinha v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Jha) 17

The Jharkhand High Court has held that Section 12(3) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 does not confer power upon the Lokayukta to pass a direction commanding upon the disciplinary authority to take action against a person, against whom irregularities are found to be true in the course of inquiry.

Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad held that the authority can only make a recommendation to that effect.

When A Petition Is Filed By Several Persons Having Similar Interests But Not 'Common Interest', Separate Court Fee Has To Be Filed: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: Binod Kumar & Ors v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 18

While hearing a reference from a single judge, a Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court has held that in petition filed jointly by several persons, one single court fee is justified where there is a common interest. However, when the interests are merely similar but not common, separate court fee has to be filed.

Emphasizing the difference between the two, Chief Justice Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad noted,

"if the interests among the petitioners are common or joint when they claim an interest as class or group, in that case only one set of court fee would be payable but when the interest is not common but similar in the sense that each of the petitioners has suffered individual injury as a result of the impugned order, then in that case though the interest is similar it cannot be termed as common interest and in such type of cases separate court fee is required to be paid."

Motor Accident| Veracity Of Witness Adducing Evidence Of Victim's Income Can't Be Doubted Merely Because He Appeared Sans Employer's Permission: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: Smt. Vibha Sinha & Ors v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 19

In a case seeking enhancement of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1989, the Jharkhand High Court refused to discard the testimony of a witness, General Manager at the company where the deceased used to work, merely because he appeared without permission from the Department Head.

Justice Gautam Choudhary noted that the rules and protocols of official business in a private concern are quite different from that of a public sector undertaking or a Government Department.

Appeal From Any Order Passed By Family Court With Consent Of Parties Not Maintainable: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Priyanka Devi v. Satish Kumar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 20

The Jharkhand High Court held that Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is akin to the provision under Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure which bars appeal from a decree passed with the consent of parties.

It added that this bar operates with further expansion under Section 19(2), in as much as, no appeal shall also lie from "any order" passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties.

With The Object of Awarding Just & Fair Compensation, Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation In The Absence Of An Appeal: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: The National Insurance Co. Ltd. East Singhbhum v. Babla Bagchi & Ors and other connected matters.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 21

The Jharkhand High Court reiterated the settled legal position that with the object of awarding just and fair compensation, the appellate Court could enhance the compensation even if an appeal or objection has not been filed.

Rashness & Negligence In Driving Is A Subjective Determination Depending on Different Factors: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Sita Chowdhury & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 22

The Jharkhand High Court has held that rashness and negligence in driving is a subjective determination depending on different factors like road condition, the volume of traffic, habitation in the area, and weather conditions. Noting that the accident took place on a single road on a foggy morning, Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary held that the accident was not a case of composite negligence and revised the compensation amount accordingly.

No Universal Rules Can Be Prescribed For Deciding A Transfer Petition: Jharkhand High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Priya Malviya & Ors v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 23

The Jharkhand High Court transferred a case from the Court of Saraikela to Bokaro, noting that in a criminal proceeding, the trial is required to be conducted within the Court, where the jurisdiction of that Court is made out, so far as the occurrence is concerned.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi referred to the case of Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu, where it was held that no universal or hard and fast rules can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition which is always to be decided based on the facts of each case.

S.31 Domestic Violence Act | Taking Cognizance & Imposing Penalty On Same Day Is Unknown To Law: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Surendra Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 24

Hearing a matter arising out of Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the Jharkhand High Court held that taking cognizance, holding a person guilty and imposing penalty, all on the same day, is unknown to the law.

Quashing one such impugned order, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi noted that the condition precedent of Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act had not been taken care of by the Court below while passing an order under that section.

Jharkhand High Court Allows Compounding Of Offences At Appellate Stage, Sets Aside Judgment Of Conviction

Case Title: Ganesh Choudhary & Anr v. The State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 25

The Jharkhand High Court allowed an appeal against conviction under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC for causing grievous hurt by use of dangerous weapons, and set aside the order of Sessions Judge following compromise between the parties.

The Court allowed the compounding of the instant appeal, noting that the incident took place more than 20 years back and both the parties, neighbors, are living in a harmonious atmosphere. It set aside the order of conviction and, for the ends of justice, allowed the offences punishable under sections 324 and 326 to be compounded under the circumstances of the present case.

Show Cause Notice Without Containing Allegations Of Violations, Amounts To Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Nkas Services Private Limited Versus State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 26

The Jharkhand High Court bench consisting of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has quashed the show cause notice issued under Goods and Service Tax (GST) for not containing the allegations of violation, amounting to a violation of principles of natural justice.

Interest On Belated Filing Of GSTR-3B Return Not Recoverable Without Adjudication: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: R.K. Transport Private Limited Versus The Union Of India Through The Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise, Ranchi And Another.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 27

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that recovery of interest under CGST Act, 2017 for delay in filing the GSTR-3B return cannot be initiated without following any adjudication proceedings under the Act in the event the interest liability is disputed by the assessee.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Aparesh Kumar Singh and Deepak Roshan, quashed the notice of recovery issued by the authorities under Section 79 of the CGST Act on the ground that the adjudication proceedings under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act were not followed by the revenue authorities.

GST Department's Failure To Follow Procedure Amounts Violation Of Natural Justice: Jharkhand High Court Quashes Summary Order In Form GST DRC-07

Case Title: M/s Narsingh Ispat Limited Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 28

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has quashed the summary order contained in Form GST DRC-07 as the department failed to follow the procedure prescribed in law before issuing a summary of the order on Form GST DRC-07, amounting to a violation of the principle of natural justice.

No Manufacturing Activity Within State , ITC Cannot Be Denied Under JVAT Act: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Exide Industries Limited Versus The State Of Jharkhand And Others.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 29

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that Input Tax Credit can be denied on Inter-State sale or transfer of stock under Section 18(8)(ix) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 only when some manufacturing activity is undertaken by the assessee in the State.

The Bench, consisting of Justices Aparesh Kumar Singh and Deepak Roshan, has held that in a taxing statue there is no room for intendment and therefore Section 18(8)(ix) cannot be stretched to cover persons who are not manufacturers so as to deny them Input Tax Credit under the Act.

Interest Liability Under GST Can't Be Raised Without Initiating Adjudication Process If Assessee Raises Dispute: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Narsingh Ispat Limited Vs Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 30

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has ruled that if an assessee disputes the liability of interest, either disputes its calculation or the leviability of interest, then the only option left for the Assessing Officer is to initiate a proceeding either under Section 74 or 74 of the CGST Act for adjudication of the liability of interest.

Holding Public Political Meeting After Enforcement Of MCC & S. 144 CrPC Order Amounts To Formation Of Unlawful Assembly: Jharkhand HC

Case title - Amitabh Choudhary v. The State of Jharkhand and another

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 31

The Jharkhand High Court has observed that holding a public political meeting by a candidate of election, after coming into force of Model Code of Conduct followed by the issuance of prohibitory order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. of the aforesaid nature, would prima facie amount to formation of unlawful assembly.

The Bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary further clarified that the common object of such an assembly, prima facie, would be to act in violation of the prohibitory order issued under Section 144 Cr.P.C.

Jharkhand High Court Rejects Plea Seeking Regularization Of Persons Employed Under MNREGA

Case title - Mrityunjay Kumar and others v. State of Jharkhand and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 32

The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a writ plea moved by 39 persons working on the sanctioned post of Gram Rojgar Sewak under the MNREGA scheme for more than 10 years seeking regularization of their employment.

The Bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary observed that the petitioners have not produced or placed on record any scheme for regularization of persons employed under MNREGA.

Jharkhand HC Orders ₹50K Compensation For 'Innocent' Tribal Arrested By Police, Directs DGP To Prevent Harassment Of Innocents

Case title - Sanichar Kol v. The State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 33

The Jharkhand High Court directed the State's Director General of Police to take suitable steps to ensure that innocent persons, against whom there are no materials, are not harassed and their liberty is not infringed or curtailed at the whim of the investigating officers.

This direction came from the Bench of Justice Ananda Sen while awarding a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to a tribal man as it found that he was made an accused in an Abetment of suicide case and was kept in custody for no fault on his part.

MV Act | Mere Assertion By Witness That Vehicle Was Being Driven Rashly Not Conclusive, Must Emerge From Evidence: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Ranchi v. Smt. Kalwati Devi & Ors and other connected matters.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 34

The Jharkhand High Court has held that a mere assertion by a witness that a particular vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently cannot be the last word based on which a Court will draw its conclusions of composite negligence in a motor vehicle accident case.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary held that the courts must piece together the evidence and draw an inference on the manner of an accident.

Motor Accident Compensation Assessed On Basis Of Dependency, Not Heirship; Non-Joinder Of All Legal Heirs Not Fatal To Claim: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Ugni Bibi v. Gobind Ram Hathampuria

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 35

The Jharkhand High Court held that a Motor Accident Tribunal cannot deny compensation to the wife of the deceased, merely for non-joinder of his remaining heirs, i.e. sons and daughters.

Merely Because The Petitioner Has Been Acquitted Later On Does Not Dilute The Allegation Of Suppression Of A Pending Criminal Case: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Purshotam Gope v. The Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 36

The Jharkhand High Court held that the suppression of a pending criminal case is all the more serious, and merely because the petitioner has been acquitted later on does not dilute the allegation of suppression. In hearing an appeal against termination for suppression of material facts, Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary noted that compliance with natural justice is not required, particularly when the candidature was subject to verification from the district authorities and the petitioner was still under temporary employment.

"Approver Can't Be Kept In Jail Indefinitely": Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail To Man In Jail For 3 Yrs Exercising Powers U/S 482 CrPC

Case title - Sudhanshu Ranjan @ Chhotu Singh v. The Union of India, through National Investigation Agency, New Delhi [Cr.M.P. No. 1300 of 2021]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 37

In a significant order, stressing that an approver cannot be allowed to remain in jail custody indefinitely, the Jharkhand High Court ordered the release of an approver-petitioner, who has been in custody for more than three years, by exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed that in exceptional and reasonable cases, the High Court has power under Section 482 CrPC to enlarge the approver on bail or in case there are circumstances to suggest that his detention had been so much prolonged.

'The Tribal Society Too Isn't Untouched By The Winds of Socio-Economic Change': Jharkhand HC Upholds Inheritance By Female Heir

Case Title: Prabha Minz v. Martha Ekka and Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 38

The Jharkhand High Court upheld the right of a female on inheritance, despite being barred by customary law white, noting that each case has to be judged individually regarding the applicable custom.

The Court noted that, ideally, it is high time that customary law of succession should be codified and be given a statutory shape. But in the meantime, each case has to be judged individually regarding the applicable custom.

Initiation Of Adjudication Proceeding Without Issuance Of Show Cause Notice Is Void Ab Initio: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s. Godavari Commodities Ltd. Versus The State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 39

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has held that the initiation of an adjudication proceeding without the issuance of a show cause notice is void ab initio.

The court held that a summary of show-cause notice as issued in Form GST DRC-01 in terms of Rule 142(1) of the CGST/JGST Rules, 2017 cannot substitute the requirement of a proper show-cause notice. The very initiation of the adjudication proceeding without issuance of show cause notice was void ab initio and consequential adjudication order passed was non est in the eye of law as the same has been passed without issuance of proper show cause notice and, thus, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

Levy Of GST On Mining Royalty And Allied Charges: Jharkhand High Court Grants Interim Protection

Case Title: M/s Mandhan Minerals Corporation Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 40

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has granted interim protection on the levy of GST on mining royalty and allied charges.

Notices Not Sent To Agnates Of Deceased, Applicant Trying To Hide Existence Of 'Will' From Them: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Probate Application

Case Title: Ram Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 41

The Jharkhand High Court expressed shock in a case where notices were not issued to agnates of a deceased, whose purported Will was sought to be executed by the applicant. It noted that no general notices in the locality were issued and the same were only sent to the State.

Thus refusing to entertain the appeal against dismissal of probate application, Justice Ananda Sen observed,

"This is a circumstance, which strikes the conscience of the Court. It is not explained as to why agnates of the deceased, who were alive, have not been made a party nor general notices were issued in the locality. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant also cannot give any proper explanation. This suggests that the claimant is trying to hide the existence of the WILL from the agnates."

S.45 PMLA: Twin Conditions For Bail Declared Unconstitutional By SC Stand Revived By 2018 Amendment Act: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Bindreshwar Ganju v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 42

The Jharkhand High Court observed that twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 that were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, stand revived on account of the defects purportedly being cured by the Parliament by way of 2018 Amendment Act.

On the basis of the above, Justice Subhash Chand denied a bail application of an accused under the Act.

Right Of Redemption Subsists So Long As Mortgage Itself Subsists, Clause To Restrict Period Of Redemption In Conflict With Law: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: Braj Kishore Sahu v. Tribhuwan Nath Sahdeo and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 43

The Jharkhand High Court has affirmed that term of mortgage placing embargo on the redemption of mortgage of property by shortening the period within which the redemption could be sought, is a clog on redemption and as such void.

Referring to L.K. Trust v. EDC Ltd., (2011) 6 SCC 780, it reiterated that a right of redemption is an incident of a subsisting mortgage and exists so long as the mortgage itself subsists.

Second Application For Appointment Of Arbitrator Is Maintainable, Even Though No Liberty Has Been Granted By Court While Setting Aside The Award: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Modern Construction Company versus State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 44

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that after an arbitral award has been set aside and quashed by the Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), an application under Section 11(6)(c) of the A&C Act for appointment of an arbitrator afresh is maintainable, even though no liberty has been granted by the Court while passing the order under Section 37.

The Single Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad held that if the second application filed by a party for appointment of an arbitrator afresh is held to be not maintainable then the dispute which is the subject matter of the contract between the parties, would remain undecided.

Improper Investigations Rampant, Culprits Going Unpunished: Jharkhand High Court Orders Training Of Police Officers

Case Title: Suresh Yadav Versus The State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 45

The Jharkhand High Court expressed its displeasure at the "appalling state of affairs" in the State due to improper investigations being carried out by Police officers in crimes, leading to several culprits going scot free.

Justice Subhash Chand thus ordered the Director, Judicial Academy (Jharkhand) to prepare a scheme to impart training to the Police Investigating Officers and to prepare the schedule programme of the same.

Consent Of Prosecutrix Not Vitiated When Her Doubts In Relationship Got Cemented With Lapse Of Time: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Kaushar Ansari v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 46

The Jharkhand High Court held that the consent of the prosecutrix under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code was not vitiated when her doubts in the relationship got cemented with the lapse of time. Setting aside the conviction of the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, a Division Bench of Justices Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Rajesh Kumar noted that,

"If at all there was a misconception in the mind of P.W.4, the same was at an early stage of the relationship, but the belief of P.W.4 got cemented as even after being aware of the status of the appellant she never desisted in such physical relationship. Such fact circumstances, would not, therefore, attract Section 90 of the I.P.C."

Non-Compoundable Criminal Case May Be Quashed On Settlement If No "Societal Interest" Is Involved: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Md. Irshad Hussain & Ors v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 47

Referring to precedents set by the Supreme Court, the Jharkhand High Court reiterated that criminal cases which are not compoundable may be quashed, if: (i) the parties have settled the matter between themselves, (ii) there is no chance of conviction and (iii) there is no societal interest involved.

Considering the settlement arrived at between the parties and that there is no societal interest involved in the case, the High Court quashed entire criminal proceedings.

No Guidelines In IPC For Awarding Rigorous/ Simple Imprisonment, Discretion Must Be Exercised Based On Mitigating & Aggregating Factors: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: Gopal Malhotra v. The State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 48

The Jharkhand High Court held that though the Indian Penal Code does not provide any guideline as to when a person may be directed to undergo simple imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment, however, the Court while passing an award must exercise its discretion judiciously.

Court said that there are three alternatives provided under section 353 IPC for awarding punishment to a convict. A convict may be punished with imprisonment, or with fine, or with imprisonment and fine both. The aforesaid three types of punishments provided under section 353 IPC are in alternative to each other as the expression "or" has been used with "comma" which would mean that the punishments are alternative as the sentence uses disjunctive expression.

Magistrate Not Empowered To Effect Delivery Of Possession Of Property U/S 107 CrPC: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Sukhlal Biruly v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 49

The Jharkhand High Court has observed that a Magistrate is not empowered to give effect to delivery of possession of the property under section 107 Cr.P.C.

The observation came from Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi:

"Looking to section 107 Cr.P.C., it is crystal clear that the Magistrate can proceed if the person is within his jurisdiction or the place of the apprehended breach of the peace or disturbance is within the local limits of his jurisdiction and only to that effect the Magistrate can pass the order under section 107 Cr.P.C. Under section 107 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is not empowered to put possession to any person and it is done by order dated 09.5.2017 which is not the spirit of section 107."

Pending Litigations Between Parties Can't Be Sole Ground To Quash Criminal Proceedings U/S 482 CrPC: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Chetan Adesera & Ors v. The State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 50

The Jharkhand High Court has held that merely because there is a case and a counter case between the parties or merely because there has been a title suit amongst the parties, the same is not sufficient to quash the criminal proceedings instituted by one of them against the other.

The Entry In Revenue Records Isn't Conclusive Evidence of Possession: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: State Bank of India v. Premlata Devi & Ors and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 51

The Jharkhand High Court has observed that the entry in revenue records is not conclusive evidence of possession. Referring to Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, Gautam Kumar Chaudhary noted that,

"As stated earlier any entry obtained on the basis of the agreement to sell that has never been produced before the court for judicial scrutiny cannot be considered as evidence of possession. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram, (2020) 11 SCC 263 held that the payment of tax and mere possession for some years was found insufficient to claim adverse possession."

'Litigation Dragged To Court, Reflects Sorry State Of Affairs': Jharkhand High Court On Govt Dept's Failure To Satisfy Compensation Award

Case Title: Birendra Prasad Roy v. Yogeshwar Mirdha & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 52

The Jharkhand High Court expressed regret over a government department's failure to satisfy the compensation awarded to the kin of a motor accident victim, following her demise due to a mishap caused by the department's vehicle.

Trial Court Must Not Be Overtly Possessed By Nature Of Offence: Jharkhand HC Sets Aside Conviction & Capital Punishment Of Rape & Murder Accused

Case Title: The State of Jharkhand v. Durga Soren and other connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 53

Setting aside an award for capital punishment for the double offence of Rape and Murder punishable under Section 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the Jharkhand High Court sharply remarked that trial courts must not be swayed by the nature of offence and must properly sift through the evidence before arriving at any conclusion.

Persons Not Responsible To Company For Conduct Of Its Business Can't Be Prosecuted For Violation Of Contract Labour Abolition Act: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: Ravi Kant & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw(Jha) 54

The Jharkhand High Court noted that a perusal of Section 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 indicates that every person in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of the commission of the offence (of engaging contract labour) shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence.

However, in the absence of a specific averment to this effect, the persons working for the company cannot be made liable for any such alleged violations.

Everyone Has Different 'Suicidability Pattern', Seemingly Deceased Was Hyper-Sensitive: Jharkhand HC Quashes Charges For Abetment Of Suicide

Case Title: Ashish Kumar Rajwade v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 55

While quashing charges for abetment of suicide against an applicant-accused, the Jharkhand High Court emphasized on varying "suicidability patterns" of different persons and observed that seemingly the deceased in the instant case was 'hyper-sensitive' and could not control her emotions which led to her taking such an extreme step.

Justice N.K. Chadravanshi noted that there was nothing on the record, which would prima facie show that applicant harassed her in any manner or played any direct or indirect act or instigation, as a consequence of which, deceased was compelled to commit suicide.

Appointment On 'Humanitarian Ground' In Absence Of Any Law To That Effect Can't Be Justified By Any Document: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 56

The Jharkhand High Court has held that to justify a 'humanitarian appointment,' one only needs to show the provision of law which allows such an appointment; and no other document of law can justify the same in the absence of the power to do so.

Registrar Of The Jharkhand Cooperative Society, Who Also Is The Ex-Officio Director Of The Respondent, Jharkhand High Court Says Appointment As Arbitrator Not Barred As Parties Had Agreed Earlier

Case Title: National Club Cooperative Society Ltd versus The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Adivasi Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 57

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that just because registration was granted to a party by a State Cooperative Society, presumption against the independence and impartiality of the Registrar of the said State Cooperative Society to act as an Arbitrator cannot arise.

The Single Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad held that by merely raising apprehension regarding the independence and impartiality of the person specified to act as an Arbitrator in the arbitration clause, a party cannot file an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) for appointment of an Arbitrator.

Recovery Proceeding Deemed To Be Stayed If Appellant Pays 10% Of Disputed Tax Amount During Pendency Of Appeal: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Sri Ram Construction Versus UOI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 58

The Jharkhand High Court bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has held that upon deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount during the pendency of appeals, recovery of any remaining balance is deemed to have been stayed in view of Section 107 Sub-section (6) and (7) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Experience Of Guiding Doctoral Research Sufficient For Promotion Of Lecturer, Conferment Of PhD Degree On Research Student Not Necessary: Jharkhand HC

Case Title : Jharkhand Public Service Commission v Dr. Mrs. Vanmala Choudahry and anrs

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 59

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the issuance of PhD degree to a research student is not a requisite condition for promotion of his Lecturer or Reader to the post of University Professor.

A single judge bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary observed the "experience of guiding research at doctoral level", which may or may not lead up to the student being awarded a PhD degree, is sufficient for the purpose.

Presumption U/S 139 NI Act Akin To General Rule Of Evidence Incorporated In S. 106 Evidence Act: Jharkhand High Court

Case title - Hazari Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 60

The Jharkhand High Court has observed that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is akin to the general rule of evidence incorporated in Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

The Bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar further said that the accused has the right to show that there is a possibility that the case pleaded against him is not correct. However, this stage would come only when a prima facie case is established by the complainant.

Consider Framing Guidelines For Issuance Of Notice Of Appearance Before Police Officers U/S 41A CrPC: Jharkhand HC To State Govt

Case title - Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary and others v. State of Jharkhand and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 61

In an important order, the Jharkhand High Court has asked the State of Jharkhand to consider framing appropriate guidelines regarding issuance of notice of appearance before police officers under Section 41A CrPC so that Jharkhand Police may be referred to as a Model Police.

The Court in the instant case also quashed an FIR filed under section 498A in view of the lack of territorial jurisdiction and expected that Jharkhand police would become model police by adopting the format of notice under section 41A CrPC as prescribed by the Delhi High Court in case of Amandeep Singh Johar.

Application For Appointment Of Arbitrator Filed After Many Years : Jharkhand High Court Dismisses The Application

Case Title: Jharia Petrol Supply versus Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 62

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that if the application for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) is itself not maintainable on the ground of inordinate delay in filing it, the issue of limitation cannot be referred to the Arbitrator for adjudication.

The Single Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad held that, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another versus Nortel Networks India Private Limited (2021), the issue of limitation is required to be answered at the threshold itself, i.e., at the stage where the application filed under Section 11(6)(c) of the A&C Act is considered by the Court.

Summary of Show Cause Notice In Form DRC-01 Is Not A Substitute Of Section 74(1) Show Cause Notice: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s. Juhi Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 63

The Jharkhand High Court held that the summary of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 is not a substitute for show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act.

The court ruled that Rule 142(1)(a) of the JGST Rules provides that the summary of show cause notice on Form DRC-01 should be issued "along with" the show cause notice under Section 74(1). The word "along with" clearly indicates that in a given case, both a show cause notice and a summary thereof have to be issued. As per Rule 142(1)(a) of the JGST Rules, the summary of a show cause notice has to be issued electronically to keep track of the proceeding initiated against the registered person, whereas a show cause notice need not necessarily be issued electronically.

Minor Student's Dead Body Found Inside School Premises: Jharkhand High Court Directs CBI To 'Reinvestigate' 2016 Murder Case

Case title - Manbahala Mahto v. State of Jharkhand and others [W.P.(Cr.) No. 73 of 2018]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 64

The Jharkhand High Court last week transferred reinvestigation of a 2016 murder case of a 7th class student to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi stressed that the Court can direct the investigation by an independent agency under the exceptional situation.

'Modi-Thief' Remark: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Rahul Gandhi's Plea To Quash Defamation Case Against Himself

Case title - Rahul Gandhi v. The State of Jharkhand and another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 65

The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the plea moved by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi seeking to quash the defamation case filed against him for his alleged statement, "why all thieves share the Modi surname".

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, in its order, observed that the 'right of reputation', as per the judicial interpretation is the dimension of the right of life and also comes within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Company Not Made An Accused, No Direct Allegations Against Directors: Jharkhand High Court Quashes FIR

Case Title: S.K. Goel versus The State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 66

The Jharkhand High Court quashed the FIR and entire criminal proceedings on the ground that the company was not made an accused and the directors of the company were made the accused. However, there was no direct allegation against the mala fide of the directors.

The single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed that criminal proceedings and civil proceedings can go on simultaneously if there are allegations of criminality and it is proved that both the cases can go simultaneously. However, it is well settled that if the criminality is not made out, the continuation of a criminal case will amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Appellate Courts Can Allow Additional Evidence U/S 391 CrPC Only In "Exceptional Circumstances": Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Nirmal Bhattacharya & Anr. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 67

The Jharkhand High Court has held that Appellate Courts can allow additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') only in "exceptional circumstances" and the same cannot be used merely to fill in lacuna that might exist in the evidence. 

Similar Matters Pending Before The Facilitation Council Under The MSME Act; Parties Can Be Referred To Arbitration: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s National Collateral Management Services Limited versus M/s Maa Diwri Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 68

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that merely because one of the parties has approached the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSME Act) for adjudication of a similar dispute, the application for appointment of arbitrator cannot be held to be not maintainable.

The Single Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad held that in view of the arbitration agreement between the parties, even if similar matters were pending before the Facilitation Council under the MSME Act, the same cannot be a ground for holding the application for appointment of arbitrator as not maintainable.

Failure To Comply With Arrest Procedure: Jharkhand High Court Grants Interim Bail To News 11 Bharat Journalist, Mulls Contempt Action Against Police

Case Title: Baby Chatterjee v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 69

The Jharkhand High Court has granted interim bail to News 11 Bharat Journalist Arup Chatterjee while noting that he was arrested without following the procedure under Section 41-A and the procedure pertaining to production of accused before Magistrate under Sections 80 and 81 CrPC.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi also called for an affidavit from the State explaining its officers' actions and will then consider the question of arbitrary use of the police's power to arrest and plausibility of initiating contempt proceedings.

[Railway Accident] Person Not Being A Rly Servant Travelling In A Goods Train Not Entitled To Compensation: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title - Madhu devi v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 70

In an important observation, the Jharkhand High Court has said that if a person, not being a railway employee, is traveling in a goods train and falls down from such a train, then he is not entitled to compensation from the Railway administration.

The bench of Justice Ananda Sen further clarified that if such a person cannot be treated as a passenger in terms of Section 123(C)(2) of the Indian Railways Act and therefore, he is not entitled to be compensated.

Inspection Report Does Not Fulfil The Ingredients Of Proper Show-Cause Notice: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Shyam Hardware Store Versus The State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 71

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the inspection report does not fulfil the ingredients of a proper show-cause notice; it amounts to a violation of principles of natural justice.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the adjudication order is null and void in the eye of the law if it is passed without the issuance of proper show-cause notice.

Application Under Section 11 Of The A&C Act Is Maintainable Despite The Pendency Of Reference Before The MSME Council: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: National Collateral Management Services Ltd v. Kunk Bihari Food Processing Pvt Ltd, Arbitration Application No. 31 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 72

The High Court of Jharkhand has held that merely because a reference on the same issue is pending before the MSME Council under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, the same is not a bar to the application under Section 11 of the A&C Act for the appointment of the arbitrator.

The Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad has held that the High Court while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act is only required to see if there is an arbitration clause between the parties and an objection regarding the pendency of a reference before the MSME Council on the same matter is not to be looked into at that stage.

Summary Of SCN In Form GST DRC-01 Cannot Substitute Requirement Of Proper SCN: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Roushan Kumar Chouhan Versus Commissioner of State Tax

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 73

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the summary of show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the requirement of a proper show cause notice under section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the levy of a penalty of 100% of tax dues reflected in the Summary of the Order contained in Form GST DRC-07 is in the teeth of the provisions of Section 73(9) of the CGST Act. As per Section 73(9), the Proper Officer while passing an adjudication order can levy a penalty up to 10% of the tax dues only.

Civil Case & Criminal Proceeding Can Be Initiated Simultaneously Only If "Criminality" Is Involved: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title : Sheo Shankar Prasad @ Shiv Shankar Prasad and anr v The State of Jharkhand

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 74

The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that both civil case and criminal proceeding can be initiated simultaneously with a rider that some sense of "criminality" is involved in the allegations.

The observation was made while hearing a quashing plea for alleged offence of Cheating while a suit for recovery of money on the same set of facts was pending.

Gender No Criteria To Deny Compassionate Employment: Jharkhand High Court Grants Relief To Married Daughter Of Deceased Employee

Case Title: Rita Giri Versus The Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 75

The Jharkhand High Court granted relief to the married daughter of a deceased employee who was denied compassionate employment by the Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited.

Justice S. N. Pathak observed that the case is an example where the applicant for compassionate appointment was "discriminated" on the ground of gender.

Standard Of Proof For Accused To Rebut Presumption U/S 139 NI Act Is That Of 'Preponderance Of Probabilities': Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Sayeed Versus The State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 76

The Jharkhand High Court has reiterated that when an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to rebut the presumption in favour of cheque holder under Section 139 of the Act, the standard of proof for doing so is that of 'preponderance of probabilities'.

[Right To Shelter] Even Encroachers Are Protected From State Action Which Violates Procedure Established By Law: Jharkhand HC

Case Title : Suresh Tirkey v The Governor With Connected Matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 77

The Jharkhand High Court observed that the right to shelter is a fundamental right of every citizen under the Constitution and any infraction of this right by State action must invite judicial intervention to protect the occupants of a dwelling house.

Unexplained & Inordinate Delay In Invoking Statutory Remedies Is Relevant Consideration While Exercising Powers Under Article 226: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh Versus Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 78

The Jharkhand High Court observed that once the statutory remedy of revision has been held to be barred by limitation, interference with such finding in writ proceedings without any explanation for inordinate delay would amount to stretching the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Leaseholder Using Land For Charitable Purpose Can't Be Charged Rent Applicable To Commercial Category Of Lease: Jharkhand High Court To State

Case Title: Holy Cross Institute Hazaribagh and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 79

The Jharkhand High Court observed that a society using a leasehold land for charitable purposes, in this case for charitable educational purpose, cannot be charged premium, rent or service charge at commercial lease rates.

Justice Kailash Prasad Deo observed that the State, as instrumentality, cannot act with arbitrariness and it must be just, fair and reasonable in all their activities including those in the field of contracts.

Exclusive Jurisdiction Is Good For Civil Suits, Can't Supersede The Seat Of Arbitration: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s R.K. Mineral Development Pvt. Ltd. v. Hindalco Industries Ltd. Arbitration Application No. 21 of 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 80

The Jharkhand High Court has held that merely because exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred on a different court, the same cannot amount to contrary indicia and the venue of arbitration would still be the seat of arbitration.

The Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad held that exclusive jurisdiction clause cannot supersede the designation of venue/seat of arbitration.

Goods Or Conveyance Can't be Detained Without Service of detention Order: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s. AMI Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 81

The Jharkhand High Court has held that no goods or conveyance shall be detained or seized without serving an order of detention or seizure on the person transporting the goods.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the adjudication order and the appellate order both suffered from procedural infirmities and lacked proper opportunity for the person transporting to defend himself.

If Assessee Disputes Interest Liability Then Dept. Has To Follow Procedure Laid Down u/s 73 or 74 of the CGST Act: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Bluestar Malleable Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Jharkhand

Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 82

The Jharkhand High Court has held that if any assessee disputes the liability of interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act, then the department has to follow the specific procedure as stipulated under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the department failed to follow the procedure as enshrined in Section 73 or 74 of the JGST Act.

Essential Commodities Act | Storage Limit Prescribed In Non-Compliance Of Statutory Mandate Cannot Lead To Criminal Action: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title : Hari Shankar Agarwal v State of Jharkhand

Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 83

The Jharkhand High Court has made it clear that non-compliance with statutory requirements with respect to prescribing limit for storage of goods, cannot attract criminal liability.

The observation was made while quashing multiple FIRs registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the Petitioners, over storing pulses in excess of the limit prescribed under Clause 18 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984.

Show Cause Notice Containing "NA" In Column Of Date, Time, Venue Of Personal Hearing: Jharkhand High Court Quashes Adjudication Order

Case Title: M/s. Om Prakash Store Versus The State of Jharkhand

Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 84

The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the adjudication order and held that the notice issued under notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, in the column of date, time and venue of personal hearing, was indicated by the respondents as "NA", which means not applicable.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that the adjudication order was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law. The order deserves to be quashed on the grounds of non-compliance with the statutory provisions of the JGST Act and for non-compliance with the principle of natural justice.

Minor's Mob-Lynching Case | "Mob Violence Worst Form Of Crime; Police Hiding Something": Jharkhand High Court Orders CBI Probe

Case title - Urmila Devi v. State of Jharkhand and another

Citation :2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 85

"Mob lynching or mob violence is one of the worst forms of crime committed by a group of people in a locality without any botheration of its consequence," the Jharkhand High Court observed as it transferred the probe into the 2022 mob lynching case of a minor boy named Rupesh Pandey to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi prima facie observed that the State Police had been hiding something about the case and therefore, it found it appropriate to transfer the probe to the CBI.

Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹10 Lakhs Compensation To 'Blind Minor Girl' Gang-Raped By Family Members

Case Title: "A" v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 86

The Jharkhand High Court has ordered Rs. 10 lakhs compensation for a 'blind minor girl' who was subjected to gang-rape by her own family members, including brother and uncle. The Court has further directed the State Government to establish rehabilitation centre at the capital city of Ranchi to cater to the needs of victims of such heinous and brutal offences.

Jharkhand High Court Sets Aside Demand Notice For Payment Of Service Tax On Legal Services Provided By A Senior Advocate

Case title - Madhu Sudan Mittal v. Union of India and others

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 87

The Jharkhand High Court quashed a demand notice issued by the tax authorities to a Senior Advocate seeking payment of service tax on legal services provided by him to a legal firm.

The bench of Chief Justice Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, however, did not allow the prayer seeking to quash Notification No.18/2016-ST dated 1.3.2016 and Notification No. 9/2016-ST dated 1.3.2016 issued by the tax authorities to the extent that it sought to recover service tax directly from Senior Advocates for the legal services provided by them.

Jharkhand High Court Grants Relief To Woman Who Claimed Family Members Are Forcing Her To Marry 52-Year-Old Man

Case title - Sana Rashid v. The State of Jharkhand and others

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 88

The Jharkhand High Court granted relief to a 26-year-old woman who had moved the Court seeking adequate security against her family members and other co-religious persons claiming that her family members are forcing her to marry a 52-year-old Man.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi to pass appropriate order so that her dignity and life be protected.

Where Allegations Are Against A Partnership Firm Then Its Partner Is Jointly & Severally Liable For The Same: Jharkhand High Court

Case title - Suresh Kumar v. The Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement [A.B.A. No.4575 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 89

The Jharkhand High Court has observed that even if a charge sheet is not filed against a partner of a firm in an individual capacity, and all the allegations are against the firm only, then also, the partner of the firm and he is jointly and severally liable for the same in view of Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

Model Code Of Conduct Violation Case | Jharkhand High Court Quashes Case Against CM Hemant Soren

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 90

The Jharkhand High Court quashed criminal proceedings instituted against Chief Minister Hemant Soren for allegedly violating the model code of conduct during the 2019 Assembly elections in the state.

The Court held that in the instant case, the FIR lodged by the Executive Magistrate cannot be termed as a "complaint" given to the Magistrate in writing so as to give the power to the magistrate concerned to take cognizance of the offence.

Jharkhand High Court Denies Bail To Suspended IAS Officer Pooja Singhal In Money Laundering Case

Case title - Pooja Singhal v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 91

The Jharkhand High Court denied bail to Indian Administrative Services (IAS) officer Pooja Singhal in connection with a money laundering case registered against her pertaining to the alleged embezzlement of MGNREGA funds in Khunti district during 2009-2010 and some other suspicious financial transactions.

While denying her bail, the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi noted that the apprehension of the Enforcement Directorate with regard to tempering with the evidence cannot be ruled out.

Deposit in Electronic Cash Ledger prior to due date of filing of GSTR-3B return does not discharge tax liability: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s RSB Transmissions (India) Limited Versus Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 92

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that any deposit in the electronic cash ledger prior to the due date for filing the GSTR 3B return does not amount to a discharge of the registered person's tax liability.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan observed that an electronic cash ledger is just an e-wallet where cash can be deposited at any time by creating the requisite challans. Since the amount is deposited in the electronic cash ledger, a registered assessor can claim its refund at any time.

Dispute Arising Out Of Erstwhile Central Excise Act Has To Be Dealt With Under Its Provisions And Not Under GST: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Usha Martin Limited Versus Additional Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 93

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the initiation of proceedings by the department under section 73 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for alleged contravention of the Central Excise Act (C.E.A.) and Finance Act against the petitioner in terms of Section 140 of the CGST Act for the transition of CENVAT Credit as being inadmissible under GST was beyond his jurisdiction.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan has observed that if proceedings for the transition of CENVAT credit alleged to be inadmissible are permitted to be carried out under the CGST Act, it may lead to uncertainty not only in the minds of the ordinary citizen but also in the minds of the tax authorities. In some cases, a jurisdictional proper officer under the CGST Act may initiate proceedings under the provisions of the CGST Act for contravention. In other cases, the competent jurisdictional officer may initiate proceedings under the existing law, which is the Central Excise Act, 1944 (C.E.A.) and Finance Act, for the same contravention in view of the repeal and saving provisions under Section 174 of the CGST Act. Such a course cannot be countenanced by law.

Muslim Woman Can Marry Person Of Her Choice After Attaining 15 Yrs Of Age: Jharkhand High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Md. Sonu @ Sonu v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 94

The Jharkhand High Court has held that there is a presumption under Muslim law that people attain puberty at the age of '15 years' and upon attaining the same, they are at liberty to marry persons of their choice without any interference of their guardians.

Fresh Notice Under Section 21 Not Required To Be Issued For Appointment Of Substitute Arbitrator: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: M/s. Central Coalfields Limited versus Eastern India Powertech Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 95

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that a party is not required to make a fresh request for appointment of substitute arbitrator by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), if notice under Section 21 was issued for appointment of the arbitrator sought to be substituted.

The bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad held that once an application under Section 11(6) is filed by the party before the High Court, seeking appointment of arbitrator, the jurisdiction of the parties to appoint the arbitrator as per the arbitration clause is seized.

Married Woman Can't Be Lured To Give Consent For Sex On False Promise Of Marriage: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Manish Kumar Sharma @ Manish Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 96

The Jharkhand High Court has held that a married woman, who enters into a consensual sexual relationship with a man other than her husband, cannot later on prosecute him for rape on the false pretext of marriage. In other words, the Court was of the view that a married woman cannot be lured to give consent for sex on the false promise of marriage, as such promise is illegal.

DNA Tests Can Encroach On Privacy & Physical Autonomy, Can't Be Directed As A Matter Of Course: Jharkhand High Court

Case title - Afan Ansari vs. The State of Jharkhand and another [W.P. (Cr.) No. 536 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 97

The Jharkhand High Court has observed that the order to conduct DNA Tests cannot be passed as a matter of course as such a direction may encroach privacy and physical autonomy of a person.

With this, the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi upheld an order of the Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi rejecting the plea of the man, facing rape charges under the POCSO Act, seeking a direction to conduct his own and the child's DNA examination.