( 37 ) THAT the converse use of definitions in the General Clause Act, in the manner made above, is permissible will be shown by the following two decisions. In Union of India v. A. L. Ralia Ram (25) the correspondence constituting the contract was in the name of the Government of India and was not expressed to be in the name of the Governor-General as required by Section 175 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. Never the less, the Supreme Court held that the requirements of Section 175 (3) were substantially complied with and observed as follows:

"the correspondence between the parties ultimately resulting in the acceptance note, in our judgment, amounts to a contract expressed to be made by the Government and therefore by the Governor-General, because it was the Governor-General, who had invited the tender through the Director of Purchases, and it was the Governor-General who through the Chief Director of Purchases accepted the tender of the respondent subject to the conditions prescribed therein. "

( 38 ) THE equation of the Government with the Governor-General was obviously based on the definition of the "central Government" in section 3 (8) (a) of the General Clauses Act wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document