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.
Navigating legal compliance is crucial for startups to establish a strong foundation and ensure sustainable growth. In India, understanding and adhering to applicable laws can be complex but essential. Here’s a concise guide to help startups stay compliant: 1. Incorporation ...
A vacation bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K V Vishwanathan said this prerequisite existed earlier as well and it was not inclined to intervene in the matter. New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea challenging the ...
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking an independent audit of source codes of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra noted that ...
A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 13) ruled that arbitration clauses in unstamped or inadequately stamped agreements are enforceable. Insufficiency of stamping does not make the agreement void or unenforceable but makes it inadmissible in evidence. ...
Dear community In the ever-evolving landscape of dispute resolution, the demand for faster and more efficient solutions is on the rise. As businesses and individuals seek alternatives to protracted litigation, arbitration has emerged as a compelling choice. Let's delve into ...
The Supreme Court on Monday (30th October) held that an insurance company cannot claim that it is not liable to pay compensation in a motor vehicle accident claim just because the vehicle owner did not verify the genuineness of the ...