Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)
M/S M N Trapasia, Through Proprietor ... vs Divisional Railway Manager (Wa) on 28 February, 2022
cites
Central Organisation For Railway ... vs M/S Eci Spic Smo Mcml (Jv) A Joint Venture ... on 17 December, 2019
(ii) Central Organization for Railway
Electrification vs. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV)
A joint Venture company, reported in
(2020) 14 SCC 712.
Union Of India vs Parmar Construction Company on 29 March, 2019
(iii) Union of India vs. Parmar Construction
Company, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 682.
Sp Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 4 December, 2018
(iv) Sp. Singla Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in
2019 (2) SCC 488.
T.R.Thandur vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 April, 1996
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
T.R.Thandur vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1996
SC 1643 has held that the non-obstante clause may be
used to override any specific circumstance. Likewise
in the case of Pannalal Bansilal Pitti and others vs.
vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1996 SC
1023, it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that
non-obstante clause may be used as a legislative
device to modify the ambit of provision or law
mentioned in the non-obstante clause.
Icici Bank Ltd vs Sidco Leathers Ltd. & Ors on 28 April, 2006
In the matter of ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. SIDCO
Leathers Ltd. and others reported in AIR 2006 SC
2088, it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that
wide amplitude of the non-obstante clause must be
confined to the legislative policy and it can be
given effect to, to the extent the parliament
intended and not beyond the same.
Section 12 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 21 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Pradeep Vinod Construction Co. on 30 November, 2005
(i) Union of India vs. Pradeep Vinod
Construction Company, reported in (2020) 2
SCC 464.