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.
Why Smart Businesses Invest in Legal Clarity Before Signing, Not After a Dispute Begins In business, partnerships are built on trust.Transactions are built on opportunity.But when disputes arise, courts do not interpret trust—they interpret documents. One poorly drafted agreement, one ...
Synopsis The court was hearing an appeal by a woman challenging the decision of the trial court, whereby it has dismissed her petition seeking divorce from the man on the ground of cruelty and desertion While granting divorce to a woman ...
YES! 🚫 𝐎𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 — like proven misconduct, criminal activity, or if the employment contract specifically permits termination without notice. 🧾 𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐜𝐭, 1947, and state-specific Shops & Establishment Acts, arbitrary dismissal can invite legal ...
The Rajya Sabha has passed the Jammu and Kashmir The court underlined that Section 497 treats women as properties of their husbands and is hence manifestly discriminatory. It trashed the central government’s defense of Section 497 that it protects sanctity ...
In today's rapidly evolving digital landscape, the legal industry stands at the precipice of transformation. As advancements in technology redefine the way we work, communicate, and interact, the realm of law is not immune to these revolutionary changes. At Eos ...
In order to determine the “carrying capacity” of overcrowded hill stations in Uttarakhand, Himachal, and other Himalayan states affected by landslides, the Supreme Court on Monday decided to form a panel of experts on environment and climate studies from government institutions. A ...