Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 42

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

Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 884Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

deems it fit and proper to refer to a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babita Kumari v. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2016 SCC Online Pat 9434, paragraphs no. 7 and 8 whereof are reproduced herein below:- “7. Having considered t...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

P.S.- Alamganj, District- Patna, presently posted as Dresser in R.S.B. O.T. No. 5, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. 23.Chandan Kumar S/o Sudama Singh resident of Village- Karma, Post- Karma, Via- Nasriganj, P.S.- Karakat (Gorari), District- Rohtas, presently posted as Dresser in R.S.B. O....

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Ramji Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 825Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.249 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-380 Year-2018 Thana- GHORASAHAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.Ramji Mahto Son Of Jai Mangal Mahto Resident Of Village - Mahdeva, P.S. - Ghorasa...

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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 245Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
Sheo Charan Dalmia v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 318Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
Upendra Kumar v. Ashok Rai

undefined INSC 415Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

अप क ब क्षित दवा ब खिल कर क । व वाद ब दननां क 29. 09. 2023 कलो आप क ब क्षित ह क तद । ह०/ - असपष 29. 09. 2023 ड वाक रसदी द दवाब खिल ब कय वा गय वा । व वाद ब दननां क 01. 11. 2023 S /R ह क तद । ह०/ - असपष 03.11.2023 Plaintiff Pairvi filed. Heard. Office issue show cause to defendant. Put up on 23.11.20...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Archana Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 487Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1412 of 2020 ====================================================== Archana Kumari Wife of Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, Resident of Village- Jagdishpur, P.O. and P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- West Champaran at Bettiah. ... ... Petiti...

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

undefined INSC 882Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

registered for the offence/s punishable u/s 376 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is alleged to have established physical relationship with the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3771 of 2024(2) dt.24-01-2024 2/3 victim on the pretext of the marriage....

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

1973 4 SCC 225Supreme Court of India

69% 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 →
← Previous PagePage 2Next Page →