Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 226

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 →
Kaushal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 672Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

71% Match

by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service and further to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the final Patna High Court CWJC No.2681 of 2019 dt.12-02-2024 2/3 order of punishment has been passed by the order ...

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

undefined INSC 288Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Paras Prasad And Anr v. Satyendra Prasad

undefined INSC 318Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

the admission itself. 2. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 13.02.2017 passed by the learned Sub Judge III, Siwan in Title Suit No. 559 of 2008 by which the learned Sub Judge has refused to recall the plaintiff Satyendra P...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273

2014 8 SCC 273Supreme Court of India

70% 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 →
Yogendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 189Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% 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 →
Kaushal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 280Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2681 of 2019 ====================================================== Kaushal Kumar S/o Late Jagdish Kumar Vidyarthi R/o Village- Muhabbatpur, PO- Muhabbatpurvia Dewaiya Kothi, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Shahbaj Kuraishi Md. Sharif Quraishi v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 591Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

Mr.Vijay Shankar Shrivastava For the Opposite Party/s: Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 231-07-2024At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he seeks permission ...

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

undefined INSC 832Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioners apprehends their arrest in connection with Katoriya P.S. Case No. 257 of 2020 registered under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506, 3...

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