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.
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 ...
Builder–buyer disputes have become one of the most common legal issues in India’s real estate sector. Delays in possession, unilateral changes in project plans, poor construction quality, refund refusals, and misleading commitments have affected thousands of home buyers across the ...
In a case pertaining to grant of default bail to a person accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”), the Supreme Court yesterday allowed an appeal filed by the Delhi police, observing that the High Court fell in ...
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 ...
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 ...
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has become a pivotal tool in family law, offering a way to resolve disputes without the need for contentious court battles. At Eos Chambers, we've observed the growing reliance on ADR methods such as mediation, arbitration, ...