Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(16). In Abdul Rahiman Khan vs. Sadashiva Tripathi (10), a similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that even if the contract resulting from acceptance of its tender, (hough may not be enforceable for non-observance of Ihe provisions of Article 299 of the Constitulion, still the petitioner incurred disqualification under the Act, 1951 from standing as a candidate for election to the State Legislature.

(17). In konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda vs. Vishwanatha Reddy (11), the Apex Court held that merely because the contract had been entered into without complying with the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution, it would not save bar of Election Law to the candidature.

(21). In New Marine Coal Co. (Bengal) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India &ors. (14), the Apex Court held that any contract in violation of the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution is void and unenforceable.

(22). In Mulamchand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (15), The Apex Court, while dealing with the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution, held as under:-

"If the plea of the respondent regarding estoppel or rectification is admitted, that would mean, in effect, the repeal of an important constitutional provision intended for the protection of the general public. That is why the plea of estoppel or rectification cannot be permitted in such a case."

(23). In State of U.P. & ors. vs. Murari Lal & Bros. Ltd. (16), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-

"The concensus of opinion is that a contract entered into without complying with the conditions laid down in Article 299(a) is void. If there is no contract in the eye of the law, it is difficult to see how Section 230(3) of the Contract Act would become applicable."

(24). In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. Siphi Singh & ors. (17), the Apex Court reiterated the law, holding that failure to comply with the conditions incorporated in Article 299 of the Constitution "nullifies the contract and renders it void and unenforceable."

(27). In Amrit Vanaspati Ltd. vs. State of Punjab (20), it had been observed that any promise or agreement which is prohibited by statute or is against public policy or made in violation of the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution, cannot be enforced in Court.

(28). In Lalji Khimji vs. State of Gujarat (21), the Apex Court held that the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution are mandatory in character and their non-compliance would render a contract void.

(29). In Bihari Lal vs. Bhuri Devi (22), the Apex Court held that substantial compliance of the mandatory requirement of Article 299(1) of the Constitution is necessary and the said requirement may be fulfilled if the Rules made by the Government modifies or modulates the said provisions of Article 299 and authorises a particular person or authority to enter into the contract and if the contract has been signed by the persona designata, it cannot be held to be void or unenforceable.