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
𝐍𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚: 𝐀 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐆𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐍𝐑𝐈𝐬 🏡
Property disputes can be particularly challenging for Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) who may face issues like illegal possession, inheritance conflicts, and unclear property titles. Managing these disputes from abroad adds further complexity. Here are some essential legal tips for NRIs to ...
Members Of Railway Protection Force Can Seek Benefit Under Employees Compensation Act Though RPF Declared As An Armed Force: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday (26.09.2023), held that an officer of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) can seek compensation under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 even though the RPF has been declared to be an armed force of the Union. “..in ...
Cheque Case Against Firm’s Partner Can Be Quashed Only On Strong Evidence That He Didn’t Have Any Concern With Issuing Cheque : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that a cheque case against a partner of the firm cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC unless there is unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence that he/she did not have any concern with the issuance of cheques. ...
𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐮𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐂𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐁𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐀𝐧𝐲 𝐁𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐌𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐫
Why Legal Due Diligence is Crucial Before Any Business Merger 📢 Planning a merger or acquisition? Don’t skip legal due diligence—it can make or break the deal! Here’s why: 🔎 What is Legal Due Diligence?It’s a comprehensive review of a ...
S. 50 NDPS Act Not Applicable To Recovery From Bag Carried By A Person: Supreme Court
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 ...
Insurance Companies Must Deal In A Bonafide & Fair Manner ; Should Not Just Care For Its Own Profits : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that an insurance is expected to deal with the insured in a bonafide and fair manner and should not just care for and cater to its own profits. It is the duty of the insurance company ...
Speak With Our
Get a Appointment