Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 87

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

Upendra Kumar v. Ashok Rai

undefined INSC 417Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% Match

construction over the suit property and parties were directed to maintain status quo without hearing the defendant/petitioner. No notice was issued as is reflected from the copy of the order sheet Patna High Court C.Misc. No.57 of 2024 dt.02-02-2024 2/4 attached with the present petition. ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Yogendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 260Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.5 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6732 of 2017 ====================================================== Yogendra Prasad son of late Rameshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Village Makhdumpur, Police Station- Ekangarsara...

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

undefined INSC 256Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% 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 →

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.3 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10685 of 2019 ====================================================== Vinni Kumari presently residing at Bhawar Pokhar, Behind Khetan Market, P.S. - Pirbahore, district- Patna, Posted as Dre...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Nagendra Chaubey v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 586Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.839 of 2024 ====================================================== Nagendra Chaubey S/o Sri Sukh ram Chaubey Resident of village-Hirpur, Post-Dalupur District-Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The State of Bihar through th...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Naresh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar Bihar

undefined INSC 803Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% Match

Anchal- Phulwarisarif, District- Patna, which has already been acquired by the State of Bihar from its original owner, vide L.A. No. 12/2006-07, for the purposes of construction of approach road of Patna High Court CWJC No.4322 of 2021(4) dt.20-11-2024 2/3 bridge connecting National Highway No. 83...

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

undefined INSC 315Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% 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 →
Sharda Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 471Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% Match

ORAL ORDER 213-05-2024 Heard the parties. 2. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that he will be approaching the appropriate authority for the redressal of their grievance. 3. Granting the said liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. Ravi/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Satyendra Kumar Singh v. The Veer Kunwar University Ara

undefined INSC 626Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% Match

with the calculation chart nor he has been informed as to why he is not entitled for the amount which has been sought for in the writ petition. In support of his contention, heavy reliance has been made on the calculation chart duly prepared by the college, the copy of which is marked as Annexure-7...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Sheo Charan Dalmia v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 749Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

67% Match

no. 38 (Old), Holding no. 96 (subsequent), presently part of Holding no. 1; (ii) further for direction to the respondents particularly respondent no. 3, 4 & 7 to abstain from creating unnecessary and unreasonable restrictions upon the petitioners in exercising their right to...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
← Previous PagePage 4Next Page →