“The object of Section 125 CrPC is Social Justice and also to ensure the dignity of individual as enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution of India.”
Jharkhand High Court highlighted the specific provisions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 backing all the aforesaid facilities in all public places.
“The MSMED Act, 2006 is a beneficial legislation with an object to promote and develop micro, small and/or medium enterprises, and the interpretation regarding a reference for the interest component alone would be in consonance with the object of the Act”
The instant PIL sought production and publication on the websites of orders passed by the State authorities on 7-02-2022, 10-06-2022 and 11-06-2022 to carry out suspension of internet in the State.
The claimant was a passenger travelling in the truck, but the claimant did not state about any of his loaded goods in the statement or having taken the truck on hire
The Court viewed the levy on consultancy or supply to be a clear deviation from provisions of Cess Act.
Supreme Court opined that the Jharkhand High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach and set aside the impugned order. Thus, granted bail to the husband.
The Jharkhand High Court reiterated the object of Section 498-A of IPC to punish cruelty by husband and his relatives.
Jharkhand High Court rejected any justification on part of the State regarding delay of at least 50 days on the ground that the matter was ‘under the process’.
A party to a proceeding cannot be permitted to challenge the Award and abide by it at its own free will; garner benefit from it; get the opposite party to effectively alter its position; and then press its challenge after the passage of a considerable length of time.
The Jharkhand High Court made it clear that the stature of the person whose land grab was attempted is not important, but the situation is the reason that the Court took cognizance of the instant matter.
Jharkhand High Court commented that the State Police’s lackadaisical attitude to arrest anyone and put him in custody made the petitioner suffer humiliation, who was having a bright career and completed SSC exam.
Jharkhand High Court clarified that Section 233 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (‘IBC Code’) gives protection to a resolution professional from criminal prosecution for acts in good faith, and not where he has been apprehended red-handed with the bribe amount.
Justice Aniruddha Bose who celebrates his 64th birthday today, had served the High Courts of Calcutta and Jharkhand as a Judge prior to being elevated to the Supreme Court in 2019.
The Jharkhand High Court said that a show cause notice specifying grounds for the proposed action is mandatory in order to enable the other party to answer the case before passing blacklisting orders.
Jharkhand High Court quashed the communication by JBVNL rejecting electrical connection due to outstanding dues of the erstwhile owner of the premises.
Former Judge of Uttaranchal High Court, Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra was recently elevated as the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court. At his swearing-in ceremony, Justice Mishra stated that his priority will be to impart justice to the poor and downtrodden while expediting old cases.
Jharkhand High Court concurred with the Trial Court’s decision and held that the prosecution has proved the charge beyond all shadow of doubt which cannot be said to suffer from an error.
Jharkhand High Court refused to disturb the findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court in a title suit for succession by an adopted son, whose adoption was questioned on the ground of customary provisions of Santhals.