Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 54

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

but a ‘superstructure’ erected/installed on the platform of 30 ft height and the statue encompasses the word ‘superstructure’ mentioned in Section 2(k) of the Act 2008. The learned counsel next Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2021(11) dt.12-01-2024 5/10 submitted that, as per Clause 5(ii) of the Ag...

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 →

with a liberty to the appellant to approach the High Court with appropriate application. The petitioner again filed CWJC No. 10874 of 2014, which was withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2021(11) dt.12-01-2024 4/10 approach the forum of arbitration for settlem...

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 →

the Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation (Annexure-5). Thereafter, an agreement was entered into between the parties on 29 th August, 2013. The consideration money was fixed as Rs.17.37 crores, Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2021(11) dt.12-01-2024 3/10 as per Clause 5 of the agreement. The ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

the issue will be resolved by the Managing Director, Bihar State Tourism Development Corporation, Ltd. amicably. However, in case of any deadlock, Secretary Tourism Govt. of Bihar will be the sole Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2021(11) dt.12-01-2024 6/10 arbitrator.” 6. The learned counsel ...

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 →

any of its works relating to construction, repairs or maintenance of any building or superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservoir, tank, lake, road all types of bridge, culvert, factory or work shops or of such other work of the State Government or, as the case may be, of the public ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Nagendra Chaubey v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 597Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.839 of 2024 ====================================================== Nagendra Chaubey S/o Sri Sukh ram Chaubey Resident of village-Hirpur, Post-Dalupur District-Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The State of Bihar through th...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Upendra Kumar v. Ashok Rai

undefined INSC 229Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

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 →
← Previous PagePage 2Next Page →