Can’t Seek Immunity From Legal Provisions Because Contract
Can’t Seek Immunity From Legal Provisions Because Contract In President’s Name: SC
|
Defending the Centre, ASG argued that the contract in the case stands on a different footing as it is entered into in the name of the President.
The Union of India cannot demand an immunity from the operation of pertinent legal provisions just because a contract is in the name of the President of India, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala, interpreted Article 299 of the Constitution to hold that the central government, as a party to a contract, cannot wriggle out of statutory bars by arguing that the contract is in the name of the President of India.
Article 299 provides that all contracts in the exercise of the executive power of the union or of a State shall be expressed to be made by the President or by the Governor of the State, and all such contracts will be executed by a person duly authorized in that behalf.
“Having considered the purpose and object of Article 299, we are of the clear opinion that a contract entered into in the name of the President of India, cannot and will not create an immunity against the application of any statutory prescription imposing conditions on parties to an agreement, when the Government chooses to enter into a contract,” held the judgment, authored by justice Narasimha.
Post Categories
Featured Posts
Latest Posts
Latest Posts
BREAKING| Supreme Court Issues Fresh Guidelines For Senior Designation; Previous Applicants Required To Update Or Submit Fresh Applications
The Supreme Court has issued fresh guidelines for the designation of senior advocates following the May 12 judgment in Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court which modified the criteria for senior designation. The Court has directed that Advocates-on-Record/Advocates who had applied in response ...
2020 Delhi Riots: SC Dismisses Delhi Police’s Pleas Against HC Verdicts Granting Bail To Three Student Activists
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the pleas filed by the Delhi Police against the bail granted to three student activists in the 2020 North East Delhi riots case. A bench of Justices S K Kaul and A Amanullah passed the order ...
Stop Misleading Advertisements, Will Impose Rs 1 Crore Cost On Every Product Claiming False Cure: Supreme Court To Patanjali Ayurved
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 21) reprimanded the Patanjali Ayurved for continuing to publish misleading claims and advertisements against modern systems of medicine. While considering a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association against misleading advertisements, the bench comprising ...
Understanding Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, a colonial-era law, criminalized "unnatural offenses," including consensual same-sex relationships. However, in a historic judgment on September 6, 2018, the Supreme Court of India decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults, marking a significant ...
Understanding Section 11: Why Minors Cannot Contract | Know the Law
📘 Can a Minor Enter Into a Contract? ❌ Absolutely Not.As per Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a person must be of the age of majority (i.e., 18 years or 21 in certain guardianship cases) to enter ...
Insurance Companies Must Deal In A Bonafide & Fair Manner ; Should Not Just Care For Its Own Profits : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that an insurance is expected to deal with the insured in a bonafide and fair manner and should not just care for and cater to its own profits. It is the duty of the insurance company ...
Speak With Our
Get a Appointment