Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 25

Statute: Registration Act, 1908 (registration-act-1908)

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 →
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248

1978 1 SCC 248Supreme Court of India

69% Match

FACTS: Petitioner's passport was impounded without giving reasons. Held: Article 21 procedure must be 'just, fair, and reasonable', not arbitrary or oppressive. Ratio: Expanded Article 21 scope, introducing substantive due process principles into Indian jurisprudence....

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 →
Suresh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 752Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioners apprehends their arrest in connection with Katoriya P.S. Case No. 257 of 2020 registered under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506, 3...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Ajay Prasad, Advocate v. The Registar General, Patna High Court Patna

undefined INSC 510Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.39 of 2024 ====================================================== Ajay Prasad, Advocate Son of late Chamru Lal, Resident of Satyanarain Building Exhibition Road,P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001, town and distr...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Krishnadeo Poddar v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 872Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.10 of 2020 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12370 of 2015 ====================================================== Krishnadeo Poddar Son of Late Sitabi Poddar, Retired Head Electrician, Muzaffapur Electric Supply Circle, res...

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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 125Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

society. Any lapse in execution of the said scheme has to be taken very seriously. Closure of even one day entails the beneficiaries going without their meals, which cannot be overlooked. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the authorities cancelling her selection as wel...

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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 735Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
← Previous PagePage 3Next Page →