Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 142-1960

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

Mukesh Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 338Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Sharda Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 510Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4827 of 2017 ====================================================== 1.Sharda Yadav Son of Late Rama Bhagat, 2.Vanjara Yadav, 3.Hazari Yadav, Sons of Munaka Yadav, All are resident of village - Birbhanpu...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Baby Singh v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 639Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1393 of 2024 ====================================================== 1.Baby Singh Wife of Umesh Prasad Singh Resident of Mohalla- Mohanpur, Punaichak, Sundri Bhawan, P.S.- Shashtrinagar, Dist.- Patna. 2.Umesh Prasad Singh, ...

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

undefined INSC 176Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248

1978 1 SCC 248Supreme Court of India

68% 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 →
Bharat Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 404Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11542 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2022 Thana- FOREST (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL) District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.Bharat Yadav Son of Ganesh Yadav R/o vill - Baijala, P.S. - Jhajha,...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Rajesh Tewari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 854Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

case of owner is from the Nagaland whereas auction advertised through newspaper was in State of Bihar. These things have not been taken note of for these many years in umpteen number of excise cases. However, the officials are keep on committing one or the other error whether it is knowingly or unk...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Rajesh Tewari v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 111Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

Brajesh Kumar @ Brajesh Kumar Pandey, Son of Shailendra Kumar Pandey, Resident of Mohalla-Bagmali, P.S.-Town Hajipur, District-Vaishali-844101. ... ... Petitioner. Versus 1.The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Excise Department, Bihar, Patna. 2.The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 3.The Dist...

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

undefined INSC 753Patnahcucisdb94 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 →
Mukesh Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 316Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

68% Match

labourer. He does not get work on each and every day in a month. Therefore, it is not financially possible for him to pay Rs. 6,000/- (Six thousand) per month to the opposite party. Accordingly, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the amount of maintenance allowance may be reduced ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
← Previous PagePage 4Next Page →