Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 55

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

Kapil Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 808Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 777Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

before the respondent no. 6. It transpired that the petitioner has been found unsuited on account of the fact that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnised with Ajeet Kumar Aryan after the cut Patna High Court CWJC No.426 of 2022 dt.26-11-2024 3/8 off date of 16.02.2018, when the Aam Sabha wa...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

2017 10 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

69% 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 →
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248

1978 1 SCC 248Supreme Court of India

69% 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 →
Suresh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 537Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6493 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2020 Thana- KATORIYA District- Banka ====================================================== 1.Suresh Yadav Son Of Sugdev Yadav Village-Sijhua, P.S.-Katoriya, District- Banka. 2.Parwa...

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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 268Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Md. Afaque Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 275Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

(vishanpur), P.O. And P.S.- Pratappur, Distt.- Chatra (jharkhand). 5.Hasin Anwar @ Babablu S/O Said Anavar Ahmad @ Syed Anwar R/O Village- Bikopur, P.S- Kothi, Distt.- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.Ruby Parveen D/O Jahir Ahmad R/O Village- Belwar, P.S- Kothi, Distt.- Gaya...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Paras Prasad And Anr v. Satyendra Prasad

undefined INSC 611Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.703 of 2017 ====================================================== 1.Paras Prasad and Anr Son of Laldhari Mahto @ Jangi Mahto 2.Gita Devi wife of Paras Prasad Both residents of village - Teghra, Police Station - Maharajgan...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Harendra Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 437Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
← Previous PagePage 4Next Page →