Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 33

Statute: Stamp Act, 1899 (stamp-act-1899)

Yogendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 620Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.5 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6732 of 2017 ====================================================== Yogendra Prasad son of late Rameshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Village Makhdumpur, Police Station- Ekangarsara...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Bande Lal Sah v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 870Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3633 of 2018 ====================================================== Bande Lal Sah S/o Late Sundar Lal Sah, Resident of Village- Ekamba, P.S.- Jalalgarh, District- Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1.The State of Bihar. 2.Th...

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 →

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 →
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 →
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 →

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 →

any of its works relating to construction, repairs or maintenance of any building or superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservoir, tank, lake, road all types of bridge, culvert, factory or work shops or of such other work of the State Government or, as the case may be, of the public ...

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 →

parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s: Mr. S.D.Sanjay,Sr. Advodate Mr. Mohit Agarwal Mr. Rahul Kumar Mr.Vishal Kumar Ms. Priya Gupta For the State Mr. Nalin Vilochan Tiwary, AC to GA 9 For BSTDCL Mr. Kumar A...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
← Previous PagePage 2Next Page →