Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 107

Statute: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (code-of-civil-procedure-1908)

Ram Janam Rai v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 642Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1026 of 2023 ====================================================== 1.Ram Janam Rai S/o Ramvriksh Rai Resident of Village- BhauPrasad, P.S.- Dumara, Post- Parmanandpur, District- Sitamarhi. 2.Prem Lal Yadav S/o Late Janaki Rai,...

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

undefined INSC 807Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
Sangita Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 700Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 494Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

128 of 2019 by the Collector, Samstipur whereby he allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 8 and set aside the order dated 19.01.2019 passed by the District Programme Officer, Samastipur in Patna High Court CWJC No.426 of 2022 dt.26-11-2024 2/8 Aganwadi Case No. 178 of 2018 and upheld t...

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

undefined INSC 802Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

of fact with regard the date of the marriage, the same ought not to be considered while exercising the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has always been at liberty to approach before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to settle the disputed question of fact. 8. This Court has heard the lea...

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

undefined INSC 458Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioners are in custody in a case registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 478, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4141 of 2024(5) dt.08-10-2024 2/3 3. As per allegation in the FIR, pet...

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

undefined INSC 284Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1781 of 2024 ====================================================== Rahul Kumar Son of Mahesh Thakur Resident of Bhabhaul Chak Dihri Police Station Pipra Punpun District Patna at Present Resident of Village Gandhihat, Police Dt...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Yogendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 246Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

Bindu Bhushan, Chief Engineer, Muzaffarpur Zone, Public Health Engineering Department, Muzaffarpur. 6.Sri Manoj Kumar, Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Darbhanga Circle, Darbhanga. 7.Sri Subodh Sankar, Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Madhubani. 8.Sri Dharmendra Kumar, ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Manoj Kumar v. Mr. Amir Subhani, The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

undefined INSC 763Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.125 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2484 of 2020 ====================================================== Manoj Kumar, Son of Late Jagdish Rai, Resident of Dharmi Raman Kutir, D.V.C. Road, Yarpur, P.S.- Gardanibagh,...

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

undefined INSC 154Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

petitioner. Therefore, the same has to held as bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order and has to necessarily set aside. 9. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and the law laid down by this Hon’ble...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
← Previous PagePage 4Next Page →