Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 10A

Statute: Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (indian-divorce-act-1869)

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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 188Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

question of fact with regard the date of the marriage of the petitioner, which otherwise also, can not be determined without taking evidences. 9. So far the post of Aganwadi Sevika is concerned, it is a post created under the scheme and not holding any civil post, thus no prot...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.3 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10685 of 2019 ====================================================== Vinni Kumari presently residing at Bhawar Pokhar, Behind Khetan Market, P.S. - Pirbahore, district- Patna, Posted as Dre...

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 →
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 →

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 →
Kapil Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 272Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

fulfillment of dowry demand. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that petitioner is father-in-law of the deceased and he has no concern with the mess a...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Upendra Kumar v. Ashok Rai

undefined INSC 366Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% 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 →
Harendra Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 592Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

petitioner. Therefore, the same has to held as bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order and has to necessarily set aside. 9. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and the law laid down by this Hon’ble...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Gajendra Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 424Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

1408, 14th Floor, D.B. Ozone Beside Thakur Mall, Near Dahisar Check Naka, Mira Road, P.S. - Kashimira, East Thane Mumbai (401107) 4.Gyan Ranjan Thakur @ Anshu Thakur Son Of Gajendra Thakur Resident Of Village - Rupolia, Panchkadi, P.S. - Dhaka, District - Motihari, At Present Flat No .- 1408, 14th ...

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