Amendatory Agreement: Fill & Download for Free

If it is mutually accepted by both the parties to a sale agreement to extend the validity of the agreement, it is necessary to execute an amendatory agreement.The amendatory agreement draft has to be in line with the initial Sale Agreement; please seek advise of an advocate for the process.

Beruberi CaseLet’s recall Article 3 of Indian ConstitutionArticle 3: Parliament may by lawa) form a new State by separation of territory from any state or by uniting two or more States or part of States or part of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any stateb) increase the area of any statec) diminish the area of stated) alter the boundaries of any statee)alter the name of any state[ Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either house of parliament except on the recommendation of the President ]Beruberi was a small group of villages in the Jalpaiguri district of today’s West Bengal which falls under the two Thanas of Jalpaiguri and Boda.At the time of partition Beruberi was included in the Indian Union. However, in the written narrative there was no reference to Thana Boda. In 1952, Pakistan tried to exploit this narrative by making a reference that there is no mention of Thana Boda. At that time, Prime minister Nehru decided to have an agreement with Pakistan on Beruberi splitting into two and awarding the south Beruberi to East Pakistan.President Rajendra Prasad decided to address the matter to Supreme Court of India. The question was put forward that whether the Executive has the right to enter into an agreement with ceding of territory of Indian Union.In his verdict, The Supreme Court categorically stated that Executive have no powers to enter into an agreement related to ceding of territory. Such a power rest only with the Parliament of India, even there it has to happen through a Constitutional Amendment under Art. 368. as stated under Article 3.Now, coming to your second question, how did it effect the Preamble of Constitution. During the proceedings of Court, a point was raised that even Parliament has no power to cede any part of the territory of India in favour of a foreign State either by ordinary legislation or even by the amendment of the Constitution, and so, accordingly, the only opinion on the Reference is that the Agreement on Beruberi is void and cannot be made effective even by any legislative process. It is suggested that the preamble to the Constitution clearly postulates that like the democratic republican form of government the entire territory of India is beyond the reach of Parliament and cannot be affected either by ordinary legislation or even by constitutional amendment.The very first sentence in the preamble which declares that "We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign democratic Republic", irrevocably postulates that India geographically and territoriality must always continue to be democratic and republican.The Supreme Court withheld that Preamble is not a part of the Indian Constitution and stated that it is not easy to accept the assumption that the first part of the preamble postulates a very serious limitation on one of the very important attributes of sovereignty itself. It is universally recognised that one of the attributes of sovereignty is the power to cede parts of national territory if necessary. At the highest it may perhaps be arguable that if the terms used in any of the articles in the Constitution are ambiguous or are capable of two meanings, in interpreting them some assistance may be sought in the objectives enshrined in the preamble.Kesavananda Bharti CaseIn February 1970 Kesavananda Bharti, Senior Plaintiff and head of Hindu Mutt challenged the Kerala government's attempts, under two state land reform acts, to impose restrictions on the management of its property. While the state invoked its authority under Article 21. Kesavananda prayed that the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 as amended by the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1969 be declared unconstitutional, and void.Later, The petition questioned the validity of Twenty- fourth, Twenty-fifth and Twenty-ninth Amendments of the Constitution. This case was the culmination of serious conflict between Indian Judiciary and Indira Gandhi Government.The Executive claimed that Parliament can abrogate fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression, freedom to form associations or unions, and freedom of religion. They even claimed that democracy can even be replaced and one-party rule established. Indeed, short of repeal of the Constitution, any form of Government with no freedom to the citizens can be set up by Parliament by exercising its powers under Article 368.While the petitioners argued that the power of Parliament is much more limited. The Constitution gave the Indian citizen freedoms which were to subsist for ever and the Constitution was drafted to free the nation from any future tyranny of the representatives of the people. It is this freedom from tyranny which has been taken away by the impugned Article 31C, which has been inserted by the Twenty-fifth Amendment. If Article 31C is valid, hereafter Parliament and State Legislatures and not the Constitution, will determine how much freedom is good for the citizens.Now again to your second question, how did it affect the Preamble?. The Supreme Court of India withheld that the power to amend in the context was a very wide power and it could not be controlled by the literal dictionary meaning of the word "amend". Article 368 conferred a great power to Indian Parliament. The court further stated that it is not necessary to decide the ambit of Article 368 with respect to the powers of Parliament to amend Article 13(2) or to amend Article 368 itself.The court withheld that Parliament cannot destroy the fundamental structure of the Constitution but can only modify the provision thereof within the framework of the original instrument for its better effectuation. Finally, the Court laid down that Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged or taken away by the exercise of amendatory process in Article368, any further inroad into these rights will be illegal and unconstitutional unless it complies with Part III in general and Article 13(2) in particular.I hope this will help you.

I think you are talking about the Amendatory Clause from FHA/HUD if so yes if you did not have an appraisal done before signing the sales contract