Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 55

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 →
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

1973 4 SCC 225Supreme Court of India

70% Match

FACTS: Challenged Kerala Land Reforms Act. 13-judge bench reviewed parliament's power to amend the Constitution. Held: Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter or destroy the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. Ratio: Basic Structure doctri...

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 →

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 Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2021(11) dt.12-01-2024 9/10 decision that in the absence of an agree...

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 →

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 →

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.3 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10685 of 2019 ====================================================== Vinni Kumari presently residing at Bhawar Pokhar, Behind Khetan Market, P.S. - Pirbahore, district- Patna, Posted as Dre...

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 →
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 →
← Previous PagePage 2Next Page →