Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 81

Statute: Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248

1978 1 SCC 248Supreme Court of India

73% 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 →

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 →
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

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 →

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 →
Upendra Kumar v. Ashok Rai

undefined INSC 459Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

71% Match

दी द एव फ दी स वा बितू त क क स वा स्थि ब वववा ब दत जमदी न पर हलो रह क ब नमर्मा ण कवा यर्य कवा फ लोटलो ग्रवा फ दवा ब खिल ब कयवा गयवा और ब नव क दन ब कयवा गयवा ब क मददवा लहन मदकदमवा कदी जवा नकवा रदी क क Patna High Court C.Misc. No.57 of 2024 dt.02-02-2024 3/4 बिवावजतू न्यवा यवा लय नहदी आकर ब वववा ब...

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

undefined INSC 168Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 459Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
← Previous PagePage 1Next Page →