Cases Citing Section 57
Statute: Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (indian-divorce-act-1869)
undefined INSC 771 • Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)
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 →undefined INSC 775 • Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)
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 →undefined INSC 631 • Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)
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 →undefined INSC 427 • Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)
construction over the suit property and parties were directed to maintain status quo without hearing the defendant/petitioner. No notice was issued as is reflected from the copy of the order sheet Patna High Court C.Misc. No.57 of 2024 dt.02-02-2024 2/4 attached with the present petition. ...
Read Full Judgment Analysis →undefined INSC 228 • Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)
and the injuries are lacerated wounds of size 5” X 0.25” and 3” X 0.25” over vertix of head length and frontal part of head length respectively, apart from chest pain and pain and tenderness over left leg. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner no. 1 & 2 are ladies and against petitioner ...
Read Full Judgment Analysis →2014 8 SCC 273 • Supreme Court of India
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 →undefined INSC 189 • Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1507 of 2017 ====================================================== Dipak Kumar Jha Son of Late Shyam Charan Jha, Grand Son of Late Tara Charan Jha @ Lalan Babu Resident of Village - Mahisi, P.O. and P.S. - Mahisi, ...
Read Full Judgment Analysis →undefined INSC 787 • Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)
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 →2017 10 SCC 1 • Supreme Court of India
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 →undefined INSC 298 • Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.973 of 2017 ====================================================== 1.Shiv Prasad Raut and Ors Son of Late Fakan Raut, Resident of Village- Rupaulia, P.O.- Kumhrar, P.S.- Fenhara, District- East Champaran. 2.Chitranjan Rai, 3.S...
Read Full Judgment Analysis →