Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 30

Statute: Indian Contract Act, 1872 (indian-contract-act-1872)

which was to be based on a platform of 30 ft height. As such, the work performed by the petitioner in pursuance of the contract comes under the definition of ‘work contract’ defined in Section 2(k) of the Act 2008. Therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal has jurisdiction over the disput...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

come under the purview of superstructure, as mentioned in Section 2(k) of the Act, 2008. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), after referring Sections 8, 9 and 22 of the Act 2008 has held in paragraph-5 of the said...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

a sand stone statue of Lord Budha having 70 ft height in Bhumi Sparsh posture, on the platform of a height of 30 ft. The learned counsel submitted that as per the Agreement, 30 ft high platform was to be constructed first and thereon the statue of Lord Budha was to be installed. As such, ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

but a ‘superstructure’ erected/installed on the platform of 30 ft height and the statue encompasses the word ‘superstructure’ mentioned in Section 2(k) of the Act 2008. The learned counsel next Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2021(11) dt.12-01-2024 5/10 submitted that, as per Clause 5(ii) of the Ag...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

1973 4 SCC 225Supreme Court of India

70% 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 →

any of its works relating to construction, repairs or maintenance of any building or superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservoir, tank, lake, road all types of bridge, culvert, factory or work shops or of such other work of the State Government or, as the case may be, of the public ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s: Mr. S.D.Sanjay,Sr. Advodate Mr. Mohit Agarwal Mr. Rahul Kumar Mr.Vishal Kumar Ms. Priya Gupta For the State Mr. Nalin Vilochan Tiwary, AC to GA 9 For BSTDCL Mr. Kumar A...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

the Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation (Annexure-5). Thereafter, an agreement was entered into between the parties on 29 th August, 2013. The consideration money was fixed as Rs.17.37 crores, Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2021(11) dt.12-01-2024 3/10 as per Clause 5 of the agreement. The ...

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 →

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVISION No.12 of 2021 ====================================================== Rang Vikalp registered office at Studio Variation Artists Studio Sardar Patel Colony, Patliputra Colony Telephone Exchange Road behind SIS Security Office, Kurj...

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