Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 72

Statute: Companies Act, 2013 (companies-act-2013)

Krishnadeo Poddar v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 339Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.10 of 2020 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12370 of 2015 ====================================================== Krishnadeo Poddar Son of Late Sitabi Poddar, Retired Head Electrician, Muzaffapur Electric Supply Circle, res...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Rajesh Tewari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 474Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

is knowingly or unknowingly, there is inaction on the part of the superiors against such erring officials despite our earlier orders in not following or adhering to the relevant rules and procedures. Patna High Court CWJC No.1022 of 2021 dt.09-12-2024 6/12 In the present case, in not recording the...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Rajesh Tewari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 346Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

Brajesh Kumar @ Brajesh Kumar Pandey, Son of Shailendra Kumar Pandey, Resident of Mohalla-Bagmali, P.S.-Town Hajipur, District-Vaishali-844101. ... ... Petitioner. Versus 1.The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Excise Department, Bihar, Patna. 2.The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 3.The Dist...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

W/o Purushottam Das presently residing at - C/o Sitabji, Dariyapur, Mohar Tola, P.S.- Kadamkuan, District- Patna, presently posted as Dresser in Female O.T. (Gayni) Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna High Court L.P.A No.3 of 2022(4) dt.16-01-2024 2/3 Patna. 13.Madhaw Murari Singh S/o Baban ...

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

undefined INSC 377Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 840Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
Upendra Kumar v. Ashok Rai

undefined INSC 778Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
Chandradeo Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 432Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
Rajesh Tewari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 696Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

that in the present case, prima facie, petitioner as well as 1 st auction purchaser have made out a case that they are tentatively entitled to a sum of Rs.14 lakhs plus interest on behalf of the petitioner and first auction purchaser @ Rs. 7,89,700/-. If these amounts are required to be determined ...

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

undefined INSC 454Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
← Previous PagePage 3Next Page →