The Jharkhand High Court stressed that delays in executing arbitral awards undermine the objectives of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar directed the executing court to conclude proceedings by November 30, 2025.

Referring to Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021), the Court reiterated that execution must ordinarily finish within six months.

Additionally, the court also cited Chopra Fabricators (2023) and Periyammal v. Rajamani (2025), emphasising that timely execution is essential to justice.

[R.K. Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand]

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that government employees cannot claim correction of their date of birth (DOB) in service records as a matter of right at the end of their careers especially when the request comes after long delay.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that even if supported by a valid matriculation certificate, belated correction requests, even after more than two decades, are not permissible. 

The court further observed that allowing such changes at a late stage can cause administrative disruption and may be misused to extend service. The Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed, reinforcing procedural integrity.

[Uma Ram vs M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors.]

The Jharkhand High Court held that Civil Judges (Senior Division) designated as Commercial Courts have jurisdiction to try trademark infringement suits valued between ₹3 lakh and ₹1 crore.

A Bench of Chief Justice Chauhan and Justice Sujit Prasad allowed the appeal filed by M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. over the use of the mark “Grihasti Bhog.”

The Court clarified that Civil Judges (Senior Division) hold original jurisdiction as per a notification, while District Judges function as Commercial Appellate Courts. It quashed the trial court’s July 2024 order and restored the suit for trial.

[M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v I.S.D.S. Private Limited and others]

On August 13, the Jharkhand High Court directed BIT Mesra to pay ₹20 lakh compensation to the parents of Raja Paswan, a Dalit diploma student murdered on campus in 2024.

Justice Sanjay Prasad held the college responsible for gross security lapses, including the absence of a boundary wall, inactive CCTVs, and allowing outsiders inside.

The Court issued safety guidelines for all Jharkhand colleges mandating hospital tie-ups, on-campus medical facilities, adequate security, CCTV coverage, grievance cells, and SOPs. Citing Article 21, it stressed students’ right to life.

The bail pleas of four accused were rejected, and police were told to complete a fair investigation.

(Mausam Kumar Singh & Ors v State of Jharkhand & Ors)

The Jharkhand High Court granted bail to Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case for allegedly accusing Amit Shah of being involved in a murder case. The complaint was filed by BJP member Pratap Katiyar.

In February, the Jharkhand High Court quashed Gandhi’s petition to quash the criminal defamation case. After he failed to appear in court, the Chaibasa court issued a non-bailable warrant on 27th February.

A second warrant was later issued, directing him to appear on 26th June. Gandhi again approached the High Court, which directed him to appear before the trial court.

The Jharkhand High Court has asked the state’s Director General of Police to submit a personal affidavit detailing steps taken to enforce the 2005 law banning beef.

The direction came while hearing a PIL by Shyamanand Pandey, who alleged illegal beef sale in Ranchi. The Court noted that its earlier orders hadn’t been fully followed and sought updates on action taken.

It also asked for details about unauthorised slaughterhouses, inspections of meat shops, and adherence to rules. The Court questioned whether slaughterhouses are mandatory in municipal areas. Hearing resumes August 26.

The Jharkhand High Court, led by Justice Ananda Sen, condemned the practice of an investigating officer summoning a defence counsel, emphasizing that communication between an advocate and their client is privileged.

The court stayed the summons issued by the Railway Protection Force to advocate Agniva Sarkar, who represented accused in a case under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1996.

The summons sought Sarkar’s statement after an accused claimed Sarkar assured support in continuing unlawful activities.

The court noted the summons appeared aimed at extracting privileged communication and prohibited further similar notices until the petition’s disposal, safeguarding lawyer-client confidentiality. [Agniva Sarkar v The Union of India & Ors]

The Jharkhand High Court has accepted the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) appeal seeking an enhancement of sentence for RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in the Deoghar treasury case of the fodder scam.

Convicted in 2018 for misappropriating ₹89.27 lakh, Lalu was sentenced by a special CBI court to 3½ years in prison, while the maximum penalty permitted is seven years.

The CBI also requested enhanced punishment for co-accused Beck Julius and Subir Bhattacharya.

A division bench of Justices Mukhopadhyay and Nath admitted the case, with further hearings scheduled after three months.

The Jharkhand High Court has upheld a family court order granting maintenance to a widowed daughter-in-law and her minor children under Sections 19 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

The Court held that if a widow is unable to maintain herself and the in-laws hold coparcenary property, they are legally bound to provide maintenance.

The bench found that the widow had no source of income, the joint family property remained unpartitioned, and statutory conditions were met.

The in-laws’ appeal challenging the order was dismissed, confirming their obligation to support her and the children. (Surendra Das & Anr. v. Anita Das & Ors.)

The Jharkhand High Court held that allegations of a spouse's mental illness under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act must be supported by strong, reliable evidence like psychiatric records or continuous treatment history.

A division bench dismissed a husband's divorce plea citing cruelty, desertion, and his wife's mental illness, finding no substantial proof. The Court emphasized that mere allegations are insufficient to dissolve a marriage.

The court also noted the wife's genuine willingness to continue the marriage and her commitment to fulfilling her marital responsibilities with love and care.

The Jharkhand High Court has directed a man to pay Rs 90,000 per month, i.e. Rs 50,000 to his estranged wife and Rs 40,000 as child support for their autistic son, after an RTI reply revealed his annual income of Rs 27 lakh, contradicting his previous false claim of unemployment.

The Court criticised the family court for accepting the false affidavit and recognised the wife’s full-time caregiving responsibilities and the high costs of autism care, therapy, and special education.

Emphasising the father’s legal responsibility, the Court called the abandonment of an autistic child both a moral and legal failure.

The Jharkhand High Court reprimanded a judicial magistrate from Hazaribagh for remanding a 66-year-old man to custody, disregarding Supreme Court rulings that protect an accused from arrest once cognisance has been taken.

The bench, led by Justice Ananda Sen, pointed out the magistrate’s failure to adhere to binding precedents, particularly in the Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI judgment, which laid down clear procedures that once cognisance is taken, accused persons in complaint cases should be summoned, not arrested, without justification.

Despite previous judicial sensitisation efforts, the court condemned this oversight and directed the magistrate to undergo a two-day online training conducted by the Jharkhand Judicial Academy to reinforce safeguards for personal liberty.

Congress leader and Lok Sabha Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi has approached the Jharkhand High Court seeking to quash a non-bailable warrant issued against him by the Chaibasa MP-MLA Special Court in a 2018 defamation case. 

The warrant, dated May 22, 2025, mandates Gandhi's personal appearance on June 26.  His counsel argues that a pending plea before the High Court seeking exemption from appearance makes the warrant premature.

The case, filed by BJP leader Pratap Katiyar, concerns Gandhi’s remarks allegedly aimed at then-BJP President Amit Shah, which the complainant claims were defamatory.