Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 10

Statute: Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (sale-of-goods-act-1930)

Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 220Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Jyoti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 757Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

of fact with regard the date of the marriage, the same ought not to be considered while exercising the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has always been at liberty to approach before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to settle the disputed question of fact. 8. This Court has heard the lea...

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 →

P.S.- Alamganj, District- Patna, presently posted as Dresser in R.S.B. O.T. No. 5, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. 23.Chandan Kumar S/o Sudama Singh resident of Village- Karma, Post- Karma, Via- Nasriganj, P.S.- Karakat (Gorari), District- Rohtas, presently posted as Dresser in R.S.B. O....

Read Full Judgment Analysis →

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 →
Rajesh Tewari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 660Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

Kishore Thakur, Advocate. For the State: Mr. AG. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY Patna High Court CWJC No.1022 of 2021 dt.09-12-2024 2/12 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Upendra Kumar v. Ashok Rai

undefined INSC 459Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% 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 →
Rajesh Tewari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 687Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

have alleged to be created one for the purpose of claiming the dues of the petitioner. In this regard, no material has been placed on record. Moreover, due to avoiding these type of disputed issues like diary of the vehicle as on the date of seizure of the vehicle and its auction, certain procedure...

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

1973 4 SCC 225Supreme Court of India

69% 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 →
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 →
← Previous PagePage 4Next Page →