Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 36

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

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 →

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 The petitioner again filed CWJC No. 10874 of 2014, which was withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2021(11) dt.12-01-2024 4/10 approach the forum of arbitration for settlem...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

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 →

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 →

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 →

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 →
Rajesh Tewari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 669Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Rajesh Tewari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 630Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2013) 2 SCC 1

2013 2 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

67% 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 →
← Previous PagePage 2Next Page →