Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 57

Statute: Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (consumer-protection-act-2019)

KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

2017 10 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

70% Match

FACTS: Challenged Aadhaar biometrics scheme as violating privacy. Held: Right to Privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Ratio: Privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty, subject to proportionality tests for state restrictions....

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

undefined INSC 535Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% 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 →
Mukesh Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 815Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

Munger ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Anurag Saurav, Adv. For the Respondent/s: Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI O...

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

undefined INSC 102Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5311 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2017 Thana- MEHSI District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.Shahbaj Kuraishi Md. Sharif Quraishi @ Sudhan Quraishi Village – Chaklahi P.S.- Mehs...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248

1978 1 SCC 248Supreme Court of India

70% 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 →
Dhurendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 644Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

the prosecution case, the petitioner is said to have stolen a Tractor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. 5. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has clean ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Krishnadeo Poddar v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 859Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Mukesh Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 250Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
Mukesh Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 100Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

some extent so that the petitioner can make payment of the maintenance allowance. 5. I have perused the materials on record. The opposite party in her evidence admitted in cross-examination that the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.148 of 2019 dt.24-04-2024 3/4 petitioner is a day labourer. There is o...

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

2014 8 SCC 273Supreme Court of India

69% 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 →
← Previous PagePage 1Next Page →