Skip to content


The Mahabir Beopar Mandal Ltd. Vs. the Forward Markets Commission - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1977SC1562; (1977)1SCC729; [1977]2SCR604; 1977(9)LC150(SC)
ActsForward Contracts Regulation Act, 1952 - Sections 4, 14A, 14B and 15 to 18
AppellantThe Mahabir Beopar Mandal Ltd.
RespondentThe Forward Markets Commission
Cases ReferredUnion of India and Anr. v. Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Ltd and Ors.
Excerpt:
.....to 18 of forward contracts regulation act, 1952 - whether forward market commission under act is empowered to impose restrictions on commodities in respect of which persons apply for registration - answer was given with help of precedent - it is established that provisions of act specifically give power to forward market commission to impose restrictions on such commodities for registration. - [ b.p. sinha, c.j.,; a.k. sarkar,; j.c. shah,; k. subba rao and; p.b. gajendragad, jj.] the appellants were prosecuted for having committed offences under s. 120b read with ss. 302 and 436 of the indian penal code and their case was taken up for trial before the third tribunal constituted under the west bengal tribunals of criminal jurisdiction act, 1952 (w.b. act xiv of 1952). by a..........described as the forward market commission under the forward contract (regulation) act, 1952, can impose conditions under section 14-a and section 14-b on the commodities in respect of which business can be carried on by persons who apply for registration.3. this court in union of india and anr. v. rajdhani grains and jaggery exchange ltd and ors. : [1975]2scr1 dealt with this specific question and came to the conclusion that the specification of the commodities in respect of which the business can be carried on is a condition concerned with regulation and control of the business relating to forward contracts. it is idle to suggest that the commission in granting certificate of registration to carry on business will not be competent to specify the commodities in which the persons asking.....
Judgment:

A.N. Ray, C.J.

1. Civil Appeals Nos. 873 and 1425 are by certificates under Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India and Civil Appeal No. 1748 is by special leave.

2. These appeals turn on the question whether the Commission described as the Forward Market Commission under the Forward Contract (Regulation) Act, 1952, can impose conditions under Section 14-A and Section 14-B on the commodities in respect of which business can be carried on by persons who apply for registration.

3. This Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Ltd and Ors. : [1975]2SCR1 dealt with this specific question and came to the conclusion that the specification of the commodities in respect of which the business can be carried on is a condition concerned with regulation and control of the business relating to forward contracts. It is idle to suggest that the Commission in granting certificate of registration to carry on business will not be competent to specify the commodities in which the persons asking for registration will deal.

4. Another contention was raised before us that the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Forward Contract (Regulation) Act 1952 do not confer power on the Commission to impose conditions. This Contention is also repelled by the decision of this Court to which reference has already been made. It has been held in that case that the commission alone is vested with power to impose conditions in regard to commodities in respect of which forward contracts can be entered into by a particular association. Sections 15 to 18 of the Act do not clash with the power of the Commission to impose conditions in respect of commodities in which business of forward contract can be carried on.

5. Another contention was advanced before us that with regard to the recognized associations the Commission had no power to impose conditions with regard to commodities in which they deal. This contention is also answered by the decision of this Court (supra). Further the provisions contained in Chapter III-A specifically deal with registration of all associations concerned with regulation and control of forward contracts and the power of the Commission to grant or refuse such certificate of registration.

6. All contentions advanced by the appellants are already answered by the decision of this Court (Supra) and the observations made herein. The appeals are therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //