Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.72 seconds)Mbl Infrastructure Limited vs National Highways Authority Of India on 12 June, 2009
- Jhansi Expressway Limited Vs. National Highway Authority of India
(supra) and MBL Infrastructures Limited Vs. National Highway Authority
of India (supra) are of no avail. Firstly, each case has to be examined on its
own facts, and when so examined, I find that the petitioner has not made out
a prima-facie case in its favour. Secondly, interim orders do not constitute
binding precedence.
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Section 14 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
M/S Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Limited vs National Highway Authority Of India on 12 March, 2014
- Jhansi Expressway Limited Vs. National Highway Authority of India
(supra) and MBL Infrastructures Limited Vs. National Highway Authority
of India (supra) are of no avail. Firstly, each case has to be examined on its
own facts, and when so examined, I find that the petitioner has not made out
a prima-facie case in its favour. Secondly, interim orders do not constitute
binding precedence.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Amritsar Gas Service And Ors on 19 November, 1990
68. I also find force on the respondent's reliance on the decisions in
Amritsar Gas Services & Others (supra) and MIC Electronics Ltd. &
Another (supra), since the contract between the parties appears to be a
terminable contract.
Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons vs Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 April, 1989
"11. We may at the outset mention that it is not necessary in the
present case to go into the constitutional limitations of Article
14 of the Constitution to which the appellant-Corporation as an
instrumentality of the State would be subject particularly in
view of the recent decisions of this Court in M/s. Dwarkadas
Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay
[1989] 3 SCC 293 , Mahabir Auto Stores and Ors. v. Indian Oil
Corporation and Ors. (1990) 3 SCC 752, and Km. Shrilekha
Vidyarthi etc. etc. v. State of UP, and Ors. (1991) 1 SCC 212.
Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors vs Indian Oil Corporation & Ors on 6 March, 1990
"11. We may at the outset mention that it is not necessary in the
present case to go into the constitutional limitations of Article
14 of the Constitution to which the appellant-Corporation as an
instrumentality of the State would be subject particularly in
view of the recent decisions of this Court in M/s. Dwarkadas
Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay
[1989] 3 SCC 293 , Mahabir Auto Stores and Ors. v. Indian Oil
Corporation and Ors. (1990) 3 SCC 752, and Km. Shrilekha
Vidyarthi etc. etc. v. State of UP, and Ors. (1991) 1 SCC 212.
Adhunik Steels Ltd vs Orissa Manganese And Minerals Pvt. Ltd on 10 July, 2007
60. However, in the present case, the reason for termination set out by the
respondent in its termination notice is not the purported illegality in the
execution of the project agreement on account of it being in breach of any
provision of any law. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant any such
measure as devised by the Supreme Court in Adhunik Steels Ltd. (supra).