I'm not a fan of Indian cases. I find them convoluted, and pretentiously abstract a bit too often.
Assume you want to say this:
...when interpreting a contract, do so in whole, not just part-by-part."
That's easy to read, and makes sense. But here's how I see the Indian courts commonly say the same thing (and this one's verbatim):
...One of the cardinal principles in the construction of contracts is that the entire contract must be taken as constituting an organic synthesis, embodying provisions which balance in the sum of reciprocal rights and obligations. It is through the prism of that principle that the terms of the compromise decree must be analysed.