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
How to Legally Protect Your Business in India: A Complete Compliance Checklist (2026)
In today’s rapidly evolving regulatory environment, running a business in India is not just about growth—it is about staying compliant, protected, and risk-aware. Many businesses face legal challenges not due to intent, but due to lack of structured compliance systems. ...
#𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐋𝐚𝐰 | 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞?
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 ...
Companies Act – Decision To Allot Additional Shares Cannot Be Set Aside Merely Because Promoters Have Also Benefited: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has upheld the largely disproportionate allotment of rights share in favour of one group of shareholders of a private limited company, substantially increasing its shareholding percentage in the company over other group of shareholders.The bench comprisingJustices K.M. ...
𝐄𝐦𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲: 𝐈𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐚𝐰
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 ...
Supreme Court Sides With Madras HC: Person Forwarding Social Media Messages Liable For Contents
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 ...
Adultery No Longer A Criminal Offence In India, Rules Supreme Court
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 ...
Speak With Our
Get a Appointment