Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 181

Statute: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 111Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

72% 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 503Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

72% 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 →
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 130Patnahcucisdb94 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 757Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248

1978 1 SCC 248Supreme Court of India

70% 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

70% 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 →
Santosh Kumar Sahu v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 147Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

Ram Narayan Mahto, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. Anant Kumar 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 220-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 02. In the...

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

undefined INSC 382Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

Munger ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Anurag Saurav, Adv. For the Respondent/s: Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI O...

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

undefined INSC 166Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

tried to forcibly evict the informant from the land in which his buffaloes were grazing and the informant was taking care of that land as caretaker on behalf of some other person. When the informant Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6504 of 2024(2) dt.20-02-2024 2/3 opposed his eviction, the p...

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