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
Supreme Court Sides With Madras HC: Person Forwarding Social Media Messages Liable For Contents
The Madras High Court had noted that Shekher was a person of high stature and had many followers. It stated that he should have exercised more caution when forwarding messages. The Supreme Court refused to entertain an appeal challenging Madras ...
Recruitment Process -Last Date To Fulfil Eligibility Criteria Is Last Date To Submit Applications, In The Absence Of Any Specific Rule: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court emphasized that where there is an absence of any specific rule or prescription, the last day for fulfilling eligibility is the last date of submission of the application. The Court made the observation while refusing the benefit ...
Dividend Income From Indian Entity's Establishment In Oman Having ‘Permanent Establishment’ Status Under DTAA Not Taxable In India: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that if an Indian Entity’s Establishment is operating in Oman and has a ‘Permanent Establishment’ status under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“DTAA”), then the dividend income received by the Indian Entity from such Establishment would ...
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 ...
75% Eligibility Condition For Admission To Sports Quota ‘Unwarranted & Discriminatory
The Supreme Court has held that the eligibility condition of minimum 75% marks does not promote the object of introducing the sports quota, and such criterion subverts the object and falls afoul of the equality clause in Article 14 of ...
Parliament Passes Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023
After opposition walked out over their demands for discussion on Manipur Violence, the Rajya Sabha passed the contentious Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 today. It aims to amend certain provisions under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, to extend and exempt ...
Speak With Our
Get a Appointment