Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 32

Statute: Partnership Act, 1932 (partnership-act-1932)

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 →
Vikki Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 601Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

is apprehending his arrest in a case in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 26 of 2023 dated 23.08.2023 registered for the offence/s punishable u/s 376 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is alleged to have established physical relationship with th...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
The Union Of India v. Lalan Kumar

undefined INSC 780Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.789 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22349 of 2012 ====================================================== 1.The Union Of India through Secretary Cum D.G., department of Post, Bhawan, New Delhi. 2.The Assistant Dire...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Nisha Bharti v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 870Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2438 of 2024 ====================================================== Nisha Bharti Wife of Nagendra Sharma, resident of Village-Naya Tola, Bhalui, P.S.-Chanan, District-Lakhisarai. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The State of Bih...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Parmanand Chauhan v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 627Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

for the offence registered under sections 342, 323, 147, 149, 307, 379 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 13.07.2023 by the informant Jampa Devi. 3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that on 09.07.2023, when the informant’s husband was going to meet Md. Rafik, the accused persons ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Upendra Kumar v. Ashok Rai

undefined INSC 791Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

दी द एव फ दी स वा बितू त क क स वा स्थि ब वववा ब दत जमदी न पर हलो रह क ब नमर्मा ण कवा यर्य कवा फ लोटलो ग्रवा फ दवा ब खिल ब कयवा गयवा और ब नव क दन ब कयवा गयवा ब क मददवा लहन मदकदमवा कदी जवा नकवा रदी क क Patna High Court C.Misc. No.57 of 2024 dt.02-02-2024 3/4 बिवावजतू न्यवा यवा लय नहदी आकर ब वववा ब...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 257Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

question of fact with regard the date of the marriage of the petitioner, which otherwise also, can not be determined without taking evidences. 9. So far the post of Aganwadi Sevika is concerned, it is a post created under the scheme and not holding any civil post, thus no prot...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Vikki Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 444Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

registered for the offence/s punishable u/s 376 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is alleged to have established physical relationship with the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3771 of 2024(2) dt.24-01-2024 2/3 victim on the pretext of the marriage....

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Gajendra Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 220Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

1408, 14th Floor, D.B. Ozone Beside Thakur Mall, Near Dahisar Check Naka, Mira Road, P.S. - Kashimira, East Thane Mumbai (401107) 4.Gyan Ranjan Thakur @ Anshu Thakur Son Of Gajendra Thakur Resident Of Village - Rupolia, Panchkadi, P.S. - Dhaka, District - Motihari, At Present Flat No .- 1408, 14th ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 190Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

appointment letter and in his place, the respondent no. 8 was selected as Aganwadi Sevika. 4. On the other hand, the respondent no. 8 obtained only 58.60 % marks, much less than the petitioner, who obtained 76% marks, nonetheless her case was placed for consideration and, as such,...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
← Previous PagePage 3Next Page →