Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)
Villupuram Highways Construction Pvt ... vs National Highway Authority Of India on 29 July, 2025 cites

M/S Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd on 30 September, 2016

Thus, from a reading of the SAROD Rules as also considering that the SAROD panel is a broad-based panel in consonance with the principles elucidated in Voestalpine Schienen GMBH (supra), I am unable to agree with the Petitioners that by nominating their Arbitrators from the SAROD panel, Signature Not Verified ARB.P. 1829/2024 and connected matters Page 30 of 31 Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:30.07.2025 19:33:40 party autonomy is compromised and Court should accept their nominations made and appoint the nominee arbitrators of NHAI.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 290 - Full Document

National Highways Authority Of India & ... vs Bumihiway Ddb Ltd. (Jv) & Ors on 25 September, 2006

Reliance was placed on the judgments in National Highways Authority of India and Another v. Bumihiway DDB Ltd. (JV) and Others, (2006) 10 SCC 763; You One Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. and Another v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), (2006) 4 SCC 372; and M/s Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 58 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

You One Engineering And Construction ... vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 10 March, 2006

Reliance was placed on the judgments in National Highways Authority of India and Another v. Bumihiway DDB Ltd. (JV) and Others, (2006) 10 SCC 763; You One Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. and Another v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), (2006) 4 SCC 372; and M/s Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 20 - B N Srikrishna - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Hindustan Bulk Carriers, M/S Damani ... on 17 December, 2002

27. It is a settled position of law that effect must be given to every word in the Rule or a Statute. A construction which reduces a Rule or a Statute to futility must be avoided. An endeavour must be made by the Court to construe a provision to make it effective and operative on the principle expressed in the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat i.e. liberal construction should be put so as to uphold all provisions, if possible, to further the intention of the parties. A construction that defeats plain intention of the Legislature/Rule maker, even though there may be some inexactitude must be rejected. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation or the Rules, the bolder construction ought to be accepted so that the Rules are not reduced to a futility. [Ref.: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57]. It is a basic rule of interpretation that no part of a Statute or Rule should be rendered nugatory or superfluous and should be construed as a coherent whole, ensuring that each part has meaningful content. Where two provisions appear to be in tension, proper course is to adopt a construction that reconciles them allowing both to operate and giving effect to the underlying intent of the Legislature and/or framer of the Rule. It is the duty of the Court to avoid head on clash between two provisions and a construction that reduces one provision to a 'useless lumber' or 'dead letter' is not a harmonised construction and to harmonise is not to destroy. [Ref.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 247 - M B Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next