Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 57

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

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 →

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 →
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 →

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 The petitioner again filed CWJC No. 10874 of 2014, which was withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to Patna High Court C.R. No.12 of 2021(11) dt.12-01-2024 4/10 approach the forum of arbitration for settlem...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 →
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

2017 10 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

69% 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 →
Rajesh Tewari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 366Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →

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 →

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 →
Rajesh Tewari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 144Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Dipak Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 111Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1507 of 2017 ====================================================== Dipak Kumar Jha Son of Late Shyam Charan Jha, Grand Son of Late Tara Charan Jha @ Lalan Babu Resident of Village - Mahisi, P.O. and P.S. - Mahisi, ...

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