https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286576 A mining lease granted by the State under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules was treated as an exercise of executive power and therefore had to comply with Article 299 of the Constitution. Because the lease papers were not executed in the required constitutional form, no valid and enforceable contract arose and a claim for damages for breach could not be maintained. However, where the State retained amounts deposited under the aborted lease and the plaintiff had not acted gratuitously, restitution was available under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. The plaintiff was therefore entitled only to refund of the sums actually paid and retained, not to damages or loss of profit. en-us Fri, 09 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Mar 2020 14:41:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286576 A mining lease granted by the State under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules was treated as an exercise of executive power and therefore had to comply with Article 299 of the Constitution. Because the lease papers were not executed in the required constitutional form, no valid and enforceable contract arose and a claim for damages for breach could not be maintained. However, where the State retained amounts deposited under the aborted lease and the plaintiff had not acted gratuitously, restitution was available under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. The plaintiff was therefore entitled only to refund of the sums actually paid and retained, not to damages or loss of profit. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286576