Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 72

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

Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 145Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

available. It is apt and proper to refer the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Parvati Devi @ Parvati Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2024 (1) BLJ 178 held as follows: Patna High Court CWJC No.426 of 2022 dt.26-11-2024 6/8 “5. This Court would also refer ...

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

1973 4 SCC 225Supreme Court of India

70% 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 →

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 →
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 →

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 →
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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 523Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
Nagendra Chaubey v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 879Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →

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 →

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 →
← Previous PagePage 2Next Page →