Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 36

Statute: Specific Relief Act, 1963 (specific-relief-act-1963)

Shahbaj Kuraishi Md. Sharif Quraishi v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 126Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

Mr.Vijay Shankar Shrivastava For the Opposite Party/s: Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 231-07-2024At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he seeks permission ...

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 →
Amesh Nandan Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 650Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

and whereunder the salary of the petitioner has wrongly been revised in the pay-scale of Rs. 9300-34800/-, GP-4600/- w.e.f. 31.12.2015 though the petitioner is entitled for the said pay-scale from Patna High Court CWJC No.627 of 2022 dt.24-10-2024 2/3 24.11.2004 and also the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-...

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

undefined INSC 815Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Archana Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 796Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1412 of 2020 ====================================================== Archana Kumari Wife of Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, Resident of Village- Jagdishpur, P.O. and P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- West Champaran at Bettiah. ... ... Petiti...

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

undefined INSC 326Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

block is situated few kilometers away from the Patna-Buxar National Highway and though there is a concrete road from Bramhapur- Nainijor, near Dharmawati river bridge there is still a ‘katchi’ Patna High Court CWJC No.839 of 2024 dt.19-01-2024 2/2 road which needs construction as the villagers reg...

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

undefined INSC 511Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr.Avinash Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s: Mr. Abbas Haider, SC-6 Mr. Wasi Mohammad, AC to SC-6 For the Corporation : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Dipak Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 498Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1507 of 2017 ====================================================== Dipak Kumar Jha Son of Late Shyam Charan Jha, Grand Son of Late Tara Charan Jha @ Lalan Babu Resident of Village - Mahisi, P.O. and P.S. - Mahisi, ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Santosh Kumar Sahu v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 261Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6504 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-290 Year-2023 Thana- BAHERI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== 1.Santosh Kumar Sahu @ Santosh Sahu Son of Bilat Sahu @ Bilat Sah R/o vill - Barmattar, P...

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

undefined INSC 573Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% 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 →