Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 16

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

Rajesh Tewari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 169Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

case of owner is from the Nagaland whereas auction advertised through newspaper was in State of Bihar. These things have not been taken note of for these many years in umpteen number of excise cases. However, the officials are keep on committing one or the other error whether it is knowingly or unk...

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 →

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 →

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 The petitioner again filed CWJC No. 10874 of 2014, which was withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2021(11) dt.12-01-2024 4/10 approach the forum of arbitration for settlem...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

undefined INSC 208Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

as scrap. 6. The aforementioned decision has been taken by us in order to give quietus to the litigation, otherwise certain disputed facts are involved in order to investigate as to why petitioner got his vehicle insured on 05.02.2020 for about Rs.14 lacs with reference to the vehicle was 7 years o...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

petitioner submitted clay model of statue of Lord Budha in Bhumi Sparsh posture which was approved by the respondents, amongst other bidders. The petitioner also became successful in a financial bid and thereafter work order was issued to him, vide letter no. 487 dated 14.08.2013, issued by...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

Pramod Sah presently residing at C/o Bachchu Rajak, Mohalla- Mahendru, Near Malariya Office, P.S.- Sultanganj, District- Patna, presently posted as Dresser in the Department of Surgical I.C.U. Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. 12.Pushpa Rani W/o Purushottam Das presently residing at - C/o ...

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

undefined INSC 418Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

that in the present case, prima facie, petitioner as well as 1 st auction purchaser have made out a case that they are tentatively entitled to a sum of Rs.14 lakhs plus interest on behalf of the petitioner and first auction purchaser @ Rs. 7,89,700/-. If these amounts are required to be determined ...

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 →
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

2017 10 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

68% 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 →
← Previous PagePage 2Next Page →