Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 68

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

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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 372Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% 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 →

08.10.2013 as well as for payment of 5% of total amount, which was to be paid at the juncture of approval of clay model submitted by the petitioner, as per clause 5(ii) of the Agreement. The said writ application was dismissed and the petitioner then filed LPA No. 494 of 2014, which was disposed of...

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 →
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 →
The Union Of India v. Lalan Kumar

undefined INSC 368Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.789 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22349 of 2012 ====================================================== 1.The Union Of India through Secretary Cum D.G., department of Post, Bhawan, New Delhi. 2.The Assistant Dire...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Sheo Charan Dalmia v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 425Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

Resident of Mohalla Dalmia House Dhami Tola, K P Road, P.S. Kotwali, Gaya District Gaya that Petitioner no. 1is Presently residing at-402, Smundra Gaurav, Worli Sea Face, Worli Colony, P.S.-Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra 4.Sheo Arun Dalmia Son of Late Vishwanath Dalmia @ Bishwanath Laxm...

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 →
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 →

the letter sent by him is still with the Managing Director, Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation, who is Arbitrator, as per paragraph- 22 of the Agreement, which is extracted hereinbelow:- “22. In case of any difference of opinion in any item of work the issue will be resolved by the Man...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
← Previous PagePage 2Next Page →