Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 49

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

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 →

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 →

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 →
The Union Of India v. Lalan Kumar

undefined INSC 599Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% Match

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 512-07-2024 Heard MJC No. 789 of 2018 for restoration of CWJC No. 22349 of 2012. On 18.09.2017, CWJC No 22349 of 2012 was dismissed for non-pr...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

2017 10 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

67% 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 →

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 →

P.S.- Alamganj, District- Patna, presently posted as Dresser in R.S.B. O.T. No. 5, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. 23.Chandan Kumar S/o Sudama Singh resident of Village- Karma, Post- Karma, Via- Nasriganj, P.S.- Karakat (Gorari), District- Rohtas, presently posted as Dresser in R.S.B. O....

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

1973 4 SCC 225Supreme Court of India

67% 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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 339Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% Match

deems it fit and proper to refer to a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babita Kumari v. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2016 SCC Online Pat 9434, paragraphs no. 7 and 8 whereof are reproduced herein below:- “7. Having considered t...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
← Previous PagePage 2Next Page →