Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 157

Statute: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2013) 2 SCC 1

2013 2 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

73% 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 →
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273

2014 8 SCC 273Supreme Court of India

71% 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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 103Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

71% Match

available. It is apt and proper to refer the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Parvati Devi @ Parvati Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2024 (1) BLJ 178 held as follows: Patna High Court CWJC No.426 of 2022 dt.26-11-2024 6/8 “5. This Court would also refer ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248

1978 1 SCC 248Supreme Court of India

71% Match

FACTS: Petitioner's passport was impounded without giving reasons. Held: Article 21 procedure must be 'just, fair, and reasonable', not arbitrary or oppressive. Ratio: Expanded Article 21 scope, introducing substantive due process principles into Indian jurisprudence....

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

1973 4 SCC 225Supreme Court of India

71% 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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 364Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

71% Match

deems it fit and proper to refer to a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babita Kumari v. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2016 SCC Online Pat 9434, paragraphs no. 7 and 8 whereof are reproduced herein below:- “7. Having considered t...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 320Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

question of fact with regard the date of the marriage of the petitioner, which otherwise also, can not be determined without taking evidences. 9. So far the post of Aganwadi Sevika is concerned, it is a post created under the scheme and not holding any civil post, thus no prot...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 231Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

appointment letter and in his place, the respondent no. 8 was selected as Aganwadi Sevika. 4. On the other hand, the respondent no. 8 obtained only 58.60 % marks, much less than the petitioner, who obtained 76% marks, nonetheless her case was placed for consideration and, as such,...

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

undefined INSC 414Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% 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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 727Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

society. Any lapse in execution of the said scheme has to be taken very seriously. Closure of even one day entails the beneficiaries going without their meals, which cannot be overlooked. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the authorities cancelling her selection as wel...

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