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.
Remote Work and Employment Law in India: Navigating Legal Implications for Employers and Employees The rise of remote work, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has fundamentally changed the way businesses operate and employees engage with their work. While remote work ...
In a rapidly growing business ecosystem, safeguarding sensitive information is paramount. For Indian businesses, Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) have become crucial legal tools to protect trade secrets, proprietary information, client details, and more. This article explores NDAs from an Indian legal ...
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 ...
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the conditions for personal search as specified in Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are applicable only for the search of the physical body of the person and not for ...
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 ...
Lamenting the long delay in the execution of decrees, the Supreme Court observed that under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Executing Court can only go into questions that are limited to the execution of decree and ...