Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 106

Statute: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (negotiable-instruments-act-1881)

Rajesh Tewari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 498Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% Match

Brajesh Kumar @ Brajesh Kumar Pandey, Son of Shailendra Kumar Pandey, Resident of Mohalla-Bagmali, P.S.-Town Hajipur, District-Vaishali-844101. ... ... Petitioner. Versus 1.The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Excise Department, Bihar, Patna. 2.The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 3.The Dist...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

work shops or of such other work of the State Government or, as the case may be, of the public undertaking, as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify and includes- Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2021(11) dt.12-01-2024 7/10 (i) a contract made for the supply of g...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Manohar Lal v. State

undefined INSC 290Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% Match

Biharsharif, Nalanda, where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Excise P.S. Case No. 766 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. aditi/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Rajesh Tewari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 402Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% Match

dated 19 th December, 2020 by which the Tank Lorry bearing registration number NL01L0911 has been advertised to be sold through public auction on 19.01.2021; (iii) Issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to forthwith release Tank Lorry bearing registration number NL01L0911, since it...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

in holding that it has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. Undisputedly, the authority mentioned in paragraph-22 of the Agreement has only jurisdiction over the subject matter of the contract. 14. The revision application is accordingly dismissed. 15. As it has already been submitted that the ma...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Naresh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar Bihar

undefined INSC 219Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% Match

/ order / direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the land from encroachment, pertaining to Khata No. 100, Plot No. 363, Rakba- 0.10 acres, situated at Mauza- Mohiuddinpur, Thana No. 77, Anchal- Phulwarisarif, District- Patna, which has already been...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Krishnadeo Poddar v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 365Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.10 of 2020 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12370 of 2015 ====================================================== Krishnadeo Poddar Son of Late Sitabi Poddar, Retired Head Electrician, Muzaffapur Electric Supply Circle, res...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Rajesh Tewari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 846Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1022 of 2021 ====================================================== Rajesh Tewari Son of Srinath Tiwari Resident of 3, Dilkhush Street, Opposite Circus Avenue S.O. Circus Avenue, Kolkata, West Bengal-700017. ... ... Petitione...

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

undefined INSC 511Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% Match

Bindu Bhushan, Chief Engineer, Muzaffarpur Zone, Public Health Engineering Department, Muzaffarpur. 6.Sri Manoj Kumar, Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Darbhanga Circle, Darbhanga. 7.Sri Subodh Sankar, Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Madhubani. 8.Sri Dharmendra Kumar, ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 142Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% Match

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 →
← Previous PagePage 4Next Page →