Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 49

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

come under the purview of superstructure, as mentioned in Section 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...

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 →

which was to be based on a platform of 30 ft height. As such, the work performed by the petitioner in pursuance of the contract comes under the definition of ‘work contract’ defined in Section 2(k) of the Act 2008. Therefore, the Arbitration Tribunal has jurisdiction over the disput...

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 →

a sand stone statue of Lord Budha having 70 ft height in Bhumi Sparsh posture, on the platform of a height of 30 ft. The learned counsel submitted that as per the Agreement, 30 ft high platform was to be constructed first and thereon the statue of Lord Budha was to be installed. As such, ...

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 →
Sheo Charan Dalmia v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 525Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr.Avinash Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s: Mr. Abbas Haider, SC-6 Mr. Wasi Mohammad, AC to SC-6 For the Corporation : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY...

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 →

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 →
← Previous PagePage 1Next Page →