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.
📢 Inheritance and Succession Laws for NRIs Understanding inheritance and succession laws is crucial for Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) to manage their assets and ensure smooth transfer to their heirs. Here's a concise guide to these laws for NRIs, including key ...
Introduction:India has emerged as a popular destination for medical tourism, attracting patients from across the globe seeking high-quality healthcare services at affordable costs. While the country offers world-class medical facilities and skilled healthcare professionals, it's essential for overseas patients to ...
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Vikram Nath, has held that in order to attract the application of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which requires 6 months’ notice for termination of lease, ...
Buying property is one of the biggest financial decisions in India.But are you sure you are not making a mistake that could cost you years of litigation or financial loss? Many buyers focus only on location and price, while ignoring ...
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 ...
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Monday agreed to examine the plea of a 72-year-old woman, on whom a male co-passenger allegedly urinated on board an Air India flight in November last year, seeking a direction to the Centre, aviation regulator DGCA ...