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.
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 ...
The seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court said it disagreed with the judgment in PV Narasimha and the judgment in PV Narasimha which grants immunity to legislators for allegedly bribery for casting a vote or speech has “wide ramifications ...
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that not all marriages require a public declaration or solemnisation Not every valid marriage requires a public declaration or solemnisation in a particular manner, the Supreme Court held on Monday, as it underlined ...
Receiving a summons from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) can be intimidating. For many individuals—business owners, directors, promoters, professionals, or even family members—an ED summons creates panic, confusion, and fear of arrest. ...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 31) asked the Governments of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Delhi to file affidavits setting forth the steps they have taken to control air pollution including the measures to curb crop burning. This ...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 27) came down heavily on Patanjali Ayurved for continuing to publish misleading advertisements regarding medicinal cures, despite making an assurance to the Court earlier in November last year that no such statements would be ...