Himachal Pradesh High Court remarked that merely paying the concession to the State on account of illegal dumping won’t dissolve the muck and disappear it in the air.
Sections 20-A and 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 expresses the legislative intent to not grant injunctions relating to infrastructure projects where delay may be caused by such an injunction. Thus, the role of Courts in this exercise is to interfere to the minimum extent so that public work projects are not impeded or stalled.
Coming down furiously over the respondents Karnataka High Court reprimanded them for indulging in red-tapism and being apathetic to the educational needs of the children.
The Court said that the National Highways Authority and the Concessionaire are bound to device ways and means to ensure smooth and uninterpreted flow of traffic through the Paliyekkara Toll Plaza with immediate effect.
Authority for Advance Ruling (West Bengal): In an application filed for seeking advance ruling on whether the work of shifting
“The speed limits on most of our roads are in the vicinity of 70 to 90 km. But many of them cannot even handle traffic that moves over 20 or 30 km. This is compounded when it rains and when the potholes are not visible, as in the case of the hapless victim we are dealing with.”
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M.R. Shah* and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ., reversed concurrent findings of the Arbitral Tribunal and the Delhi
United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) No.6 explicitly recognises sanitation rights. Delay in providing sanitation facilities, in particular reference to women impedes in achieving SDG No.5 that talks about gender equality, and thereof pulling back all other associated goals.
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ., while addressing a significant and interesting question of law expressed
NHAI has successfully transitioned to 100% cashless tolling at National Highways fee plazas across the country following the guidelines for mandatory payment
Adoption of segmentation of a project cannot be adopted as a strategy to avoid environmental clearance impact assessment.
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J. held that an order of the arbitrators terminating the arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the
Supreme Court: Dealing with the question whether the Parliament was competent to enact the National Highways Act, 1956 and the National Highway
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar*, BR Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ has held that it is not necessary for
Kerala High Court: Raja Vijayaraghavan V J., allowing the present writ petition, held that the provisions for compensation and payment of interest
Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT): Justice Tarun Agarwal allowed the appeal and substituted the penalty imposed by the impugned order with a warning.
Delhi High Court: C. Hari Shankar, J., addressed three different petitions between the same parties arising out of the award passed by
Madras High Court: As reported by media, the bench comprising of Huluvadi G Ramesh and M.V. Muralidharan, JJ., directed NHAI to establish