Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 148

Statute: Constitution of India (Constitution)

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

1978 1 SCC 248Supreme Court of India

72% 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 →
Upendra Kumar v. Ashok Rai

undefined INSC 681Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

72% 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 →
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 →
Mukesh Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 285Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

71% Match

the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the opposite party and Rs. 1,000/- each per month for their three children, total being Rs. 6,000/-. 8. This Court is of the considered view that if, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- he is required to pay towards maintenance allowance ...

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

undefined INSC 280Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

71% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.148 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Munger ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Mandal @ Mukesh Mandal, Son of Raj Kumar Mandal, Resident of Village- Lal Darwaza, P.S.- Kotwali, ...

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 →
Bharat Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 628Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11542 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2022 Thana- FOREST (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL) District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.Bharat Yadav Son of Ganesh Yadav R/o vill - Baijala, P.S. - Jhajha,...

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

undefined INSC 337Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Kaushal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 660Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 12-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2.The present writ application has been filed for quashing the letter dated 23.05.2018 issued vide memo no-2277 under the signature of respon...

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