Published on: 04 December 2022 at 18:10 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: PTC (India) Financial Services Ltd. v/s Venkateswarlu Kari (2022)
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that as a general rule, any person can enter into a binding contract to waive the benefits conferred upon him by an Act of Parliament, or, as it is said, can contract himself out of the Act, unless it can be shown that such an agreement is in the circumstances of the particular case contrary to public policy.
However, certain Statutory conditions may be imposed in such terms that they cannot be waived by agreement, and, in certain circumstances, the legislature has expressly provided that any such agreement shall be void.
Para – 57
However, there is a difference between statutory provisions meant for the benefit of a person and statutory provisions which mandate contracts to be in a specific manner. One cannot waive the statutory obligations where the statute restraints explicitly or mandates parties to contract in a particular manner.
Formalities and requirements for making contracts have generally been held to be mandatory. Where a statute prescribes that a contract shall be in a specific form, or shall or shall not contain certain terms, the statutory form must be followed.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
Key Words – Pledge Ownership, Mortgage, Public Policy.