Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 51

Statute: Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (limited-liability-partnership-act-2008)

come under the purview of superstructure, as mentioned in Section 2(k) of the Act, 2008. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), after referring Sections 8, 9 and 22 of the Act 2008 has held in paragraph-5 of the said...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

a sand stone statue of Lord Budha having 70 ft height in Bhumi Sparsh posture, on the platform of a height of 30 ft. The learned counsel submitted that as per the Agreement, 30 ft high platform was to be constructed first and thereon the statue of Lord Budha was to be installed. As such, ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

08.10.2013 as well as for payment of 5% of total amount, which was to be paid at the juncture of approval of clay model submitted by the petitioner, as per clause 5(ii) of the Agreement. The said writ application was dismissed and the petitioner then filed LPA No. 494 of 2014, which was disposed of...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

which was to be based on a platform of 30 ft height. As such, the work performed by the petitioner in pursuance of the contract comes under the definition of ‘work contract’ defined in Section 2(k) of the Act 2008. Therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal has jurisdiction over the disput...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

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 →

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVISION No.12 of 2021 ====================================================== Rang Vikalp registered office at Studio Variation Artists Studio Sardar Patel Colony, Patliputra Colony Telephone Exchange Road behind SIS Security Office, Kurj...

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 →
Mukesh Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 200Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

Munger ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Anurag Saurav, Adv. For the Respondent/s: Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI O...

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

undefined INSC 244Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

Mr.Vijay Shankar Shrivastava For the Opposite Party/s: Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 231-07-2024At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he seeks permission ...

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

undefined INSC 775Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.789 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22349 of 2012 ====================================================== 1.The Union Of India through Secretary Cum D.G., department of Post, Bhawan, New Delhi. 2.The Assistant Dire...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
← Previous PagePage 1Next Page →