Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 141

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

Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2013) 2 SCC 1

2013 2 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

69% Match

FACTS: Petition seeking action for police failure to register an FIR for kidnapping. Held: Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC (now Section 173 BNSS) if the information discloses a cognizable offence. Ratio: No preliminary inquiry is permitted if cognizable offence is disclosed; ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

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 →

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 The petitioner again filed CWJC No. 10874 of 2014, which was withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2021(11) dt.12-01-2024 4/10 approach the forum of arbitration for settlem...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

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 →

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

1973 4 SCC 225Supreme Court of India

68% 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 →

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 →
Archana Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 157Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1412 of 2020 ====================================================== Archana Kumari Wife of Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, Resident of Village- Jagdishpur, P.O. and P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- West Champaran at Bettiah. ... ... Petiti...

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

undefined INSC 883Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

at a particular figure in respect of petitioner and first auction purchaser. Petitioner is concerned with the Insurance Policy dated 05.02.2020 that was in vogue till 04.02.2021 and it was insured Patna High Court CWJC No.1022 of 2021 dt.09-12-2024 8/12 for Rs.14 lacs read with the date of seizure...

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 →
← Previous PagePage 2Next Page →