Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 137-1963

Statute: Supreme Court Case Law (supreme-court-case-law)

Harendra Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 712Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

petitioner. Therefore, the same has to held as bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Rule 27(ii) of the Control Order and has to necessarily set aside. 9. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and the law laid down by this Hon’ble...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Upendra Kumar v. Ashok Rai

undefined INSC 210Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% 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 →
Sheo Charan Dalmia v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 818Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Gajendra Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 131Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

1408, 14th Floor, D.B. Ozone Beside Thakur Mall, Near Dahisar Check Naka, Mira Road, P.S. - Kashimira, East Thane Mumbai (401107) 4.Gyan Ranjan Thakur @ Anshu Thakur Son Of Gajendra Thakur Resident Of Village - Rupolia, Panchkadi, P.S. - Dhaka, District - Motihari, At Present Flat No .- 1408, 14th ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Archana Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 532Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

authorities shall take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. 6.A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the State in which he has stated that any degree of Tribhuwan University, Nepal has been declared ‘not valid’ for appointment of regular/Niyojit teachers. All niyojan units were ...

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

undefined INSC 331Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Shahbaj Kuraishi Md. Sharif Quraishi v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 674Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5311 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2017 Thana- MEHSI District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.Shahbaj Kuraishi Md. Sharif Quraishi @ Sudhan Quraishi Village – Chaklahi P.S.- Mehs...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Mukesh Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 327Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.148 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Munger ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Mandal @ Mukesh Mandal, Son of Raj Kumar Mandal, Resident of Village- Lal Darwaza, P.S.- Kotwali, ...

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

undefined INSC 560Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% 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 →
Mukesh Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 357Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the opposite party and Rs. 1,000/- each per month for their three children, total being Rs. 6,000/-. 8. This Court is of the considered view that if, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- he is required to pay towards maintenance allowance ...

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