Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 293

Statute: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

come under the purview of superstructure, as mentioned in Section 2(k) of the Act, 2008. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), after referring Sections 8, 9 and 22 of the Act 2008 has held in paragraph-5 of the said...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273

2014 8 SCC 273Supreme Court of India

72% Match

FACTS: Anticipatory bail application in a Section 498A IPC cruelty case. Held: Arrest should not be the default action in offences carrying punishment of less than 7 years. Ratio: Police must comply with Section 41A CrPC (now Section 35 BNSS) notice guidelines before executing arrest....

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

1973 4 SCC 225Supreme Court of India

72% Match

FACTS: Challenged Kerala Land Reforms Act. 13-judge bench reviewed parliament's power to amend the Constitution. Held: Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter or destroy the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. Ratio: Basic Structure doctri...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Chandradeo Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 881Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

71% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.4 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6909 of 2022 ====================================================== Chandradeo Mandal, Son of Dukhi Mandal, resident of Village- Khagor, P.S.- Kiul, District- Lakhisarai. ... ......

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2013) 2 SCC 1

2013 2 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

71% Match

FACTS: Petition seeking action for police failure to register an FIR for kidnapping. Held: Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC (now Section 173 BNSS) if the information discloses a cognizable offence. Ratio: No preliminary inquiry is permitted if cognizable offence is disclosed; ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Sangita Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 310Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

71% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1113 of 2020 ====================================================== Sangita Mandal Wife of Lakshman Mandal Resident of Nirsa Nagar, P.S. and District- Hatiya (Jharkhand) at present residing in the house of Gopal Kumar, 3LF/4/27...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Santosh Kumar Sahu v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 777Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

71% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6504 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-290 Year-2023 Thana- BAHERI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== 1.Santosh Kumar Sahu @ Santosh Sahu Son of Bilat Sahu @ Bilat Sah R/o vill - Barmattar, P...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

2017 10 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

71% Match

FACTS: Challenged Aadhaar biometrics scheme as violating privacy. Held: Right to Privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Ratio: Privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty, subject to proportionality tests for state restrictions....

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Bharat Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 491Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

71% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11542 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2022 Thana- FOREST (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL) District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.Bharat Yadav Son of Ganesh Yadav R/o vill - Baijala, P.S. - Jhajha,...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Bharat Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 602Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

71% Match

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 222-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence under Section 33(1) / 66 of the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment 1989) Ac...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
← Previous PagePage 1Next Page →