Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 105

Statute: Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)

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 →
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

2017 10 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

72% 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 →
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 →
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 →

a sand stone statue of Lord Budha having 70 ft height in Bhumi Sparsh posture, on the platform of a height of 30 ft. The learned counsel submitted that as per the Agreement, 30 ft high platform was to be constructed first and thereon the statue of Lord Budha was to be installed. As such, ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s: Mr. S.D.Sanjay,Sr. Advodate Mr. Mohit Agarwal Mr. Rahul Kumar Mr.Vishal Kumar Ms. Priya Gupta For the State Mr. Nalin Vilochan Tiwary, AC to GA 9 For BSTDCL Mr. Kumar A...

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

2013 2 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

70% 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 →
Chandradeo Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 427Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% 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 →
Dipak Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 676Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1507 of 2017 ====================================================== Dipak Kumar Jha Son of Late Shyam Charan Jha, Grand Son of Late Tara Charan Jha @ Lalan Babu Resident of Village - Mahisi, P.O. and P.S. - Mahisi, ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

Pramod Sah presently residing at C/o Bachchu Rajak, Mohalla- Mahendru, Near Malariya Office, P.S.- Sultanganj, District- Patna, presently posted as Dresser in the Department of Surgical I.C.U. Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. 12.Pushpa Rani W/o Purushottam Das presently residing at - C/o ...

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