Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 49

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

Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 427Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

of fact with regard the date of the marriage, the same ought not to be considered while exercising the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has always been at liberty to approach before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to settle the disputed question of fact. 8. This Court has heard the lea...

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

undefined INSC 366Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
Kapil Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 276Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
Bande Lal Sah v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 661Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3633 of 2018 ====================================================== Bande Lal Sah S/o Late Sundar Lal Sah, Resident of Village- Ekamba, P.S.- Jalalgarh, District- Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The State of Bihar. 2.Th...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
The Union Of India v. Lalan Kumar

undefined INSC 835Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 512-07-2024 Heard MJC No. 789 of 2018 for restoration of CWJC No. 22349 of 2012. On 18.09.2017, CWJC No 22349 of 2012 was dismissed for non-pr...

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

undefined INSC 530Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
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 →
Harendra Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 203Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 205Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

marriage of the petitioner was solemnised on 29.11.2017 itself, is the contention of learned Advocate for the petitioner. The order of the Collector, Samastipur is under challenge in the case in hand. 6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the certificate issued by the prie...

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

undefined INSC 596Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
← Previous PagePage 2Next Page →