Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 28

Statute: Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (transfer-of-property-act-1882)

W/o Purushottam Das presently residing at - C/o Sitabji, Dariyapur, Mohar Tola, P.S.- Kadamkuan, District- Patna, presently posted as Dresser in Female O.T. (Gayni) Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna High Court L.P.A No.3 of 2022(4) dt.16-01-2024 2/3 Patna. 13.Madhaw Murari Singh S/o Baban ...

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 →

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 →

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 →
Sheo Charan Dalmia v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 805Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

petition so that the matter could be taken to its logical conclusion. 6. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gaya Municipal Corporation do not have any objection. Patna High Court CWJC No.729 of 2024(2) dt.25-04-2024 4/5 8. Paragraphs 17 to 20 of the petition a...

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 →
Shiv Prasad Raut v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 359Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.973 of 2017 ====================================================== 1.Shiv Prasad Raut and Ors Son of Late Fakan Raut, Resident of Village- Rupaulia, P.O.- Kumhrar, P.S.- Fenhara, District- East Champaran. 2.Chitranjan Rai, 3.S...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273

2014 8 SCC 273Supreme Court of India

69% Match

FACTS: Anticipatory bail application in a Section 498A IPC cruelty case. Held: Arrest should not be the default action in offences carrying punishment of less than 7 years. Ratio: Police must comply with Section 41A CrPC (now Section 35 BNSS) notice guidelines before executing arrest....

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 →
← Previous PagePage 2Next Page →