Skip to content


Union of India and anr. Vs. Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberLetter Patent Appeal No. 7 of 1968
Judge
Reported inAIR1973Delhi1
ActsForward Contracts Regulation Act, 1952 - Sections 144
AppellantUnion of India and anr.
RespondentRajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Ltd. and ors.
Advocates: R.M. Lal,; Arun Mohan and; R.N. Dixit, Advs
Cases ReferredBullion and Agricultural Produce Exchange Limited v. The Forward Markets Commission
Excerpt:
forward contracts (regulation) act (1952) - section 14a--scope of--power of forward markets commission to restrict certificate granted under chapter iii-a to certain specified commodity or commodities.; where it was contended on behalf of appellant that a certificate of registration granted under chapter iiia could validly include a condition requiring the registered association not to conduct froward trading in any commodity other than the commodity specified in the certificate except with the previous approval of the forward markets commission and that such a condition in the certificate granted to respondent no. 1 was not extraneous or foreign to the provision in section 14a and was quite valid:; (repelling the above contentions) that a condition limiting the.....t.v.r. tatachari, j.(1) this letter patent appeal has been filed by the union of india and the secretary of the forward markets commission, against the judgmt of m. m. ismail j' dated july 27, 1967, whereby the learned judge allowed civil writ petition no. 360 of 1967, and declared that a certain condition contained in the certificate of registration, dated december 7, 1963, issued to messrs rajdhani grains and jaggery exchange limited as well as a direction contained in a letter, dated june 2, 1964, from the forward markets commission, bombay, to the said messrs rajdhani grain and jaggery exhange limited, were beyond the powers of the commission. the learned judge also restrained the union of india and the forward markets commission from enforcing the said condition and direction against.....
Judgment:

T.V.R. Tatachari, J.

(1) This Letter Patent Appeal has been filed by the Union of India and the Secretary of the Forward Markets Commission, against the judgmt of M. M. Ismail J' dated July 27, 1967, whereby the learned Judge allowed Civil Writ Petition No. 360 of 1967, and declared that a certain condition contained in the Certificate of Registration, dated December 7, 1963, issued to Messrs Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Limited as well as a direction contained in a letter, dated June 2, 1964, from the Forward Markets Commission, Bombay, to the said Messrs Rajdhani Grain and Jaggery Exhange Limited, were beyond the powers of the Commission. The learned Judge also restrained the Union of India and the Forward Markets Commission from enforcing the said condition and direction against Messrs Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exechange Limited.

(2) Messrs Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Limited is a Joint Stock Company (hereinafter referred to as ''the Company') incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Madan Lal, sole proprietor of Messrs Bhagwati Parshad Madan Lal, and Budh Parkash, partner of Thakur Dass Budh Parkash, were two members of the Company. The Company was regulating and controlling the business relating to forward contracts among its various members and was playing the role of a guarantor in respect of non-transferable specific delivery contracts entered into by its various members. On December 7, 1959, the Company was recognised in respect of Gar under section 6 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Forward Contracts Act'). The Company conducted future trading in Gur from December 12, 1959, till January 18, 1963, when future trading in Gur was prohibited under section 17 of the Forward Contracts Act. The Company then started to conduct future trading in mustard seed oil cake from March 13, 1963. The recognition granted to the Company in respect of Gur under section 6 of the Act expired on December 6, 1963. In the mean time, on December 3, 1963, as a Registration Certificate was required under the provisions of Chapter Iiia of the Forward Contracts Act, for carrying on business relating to forward contracts, the Company applied (Annexure A) to the Forward Markets Commission for registration for forward trading in mustard seed oil cake under section 14A of the Forward Contracts Act read with Rule 7A of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1954, and a Registration Certificate was granted on December 7, 1963. The Company thus became a registered Association within the meaning of section 2(jj) of the Forward Contracts Act. It was stated in the Certificate of Registration (Annexure B) issued to the Company as under :-

'THEForward Markets Commission having considered the application for registration made under section 14A of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952, by Rajdhani Grains and .Jagery' Exchange Ltd.. Delhi hereby grants in exercise of the powers conferred by section 14B of the said Act, regisiration to the said Association. The registration hereby granted is subject to the conditions (i) that the said Association shall comply with such directions as may from time to time be given by the Forward Markets Commission:; (ii) that the said Associa- corporation shall not conduct forward trading in any commodity other than those specified hercunder except with the previous approval of the Forward Markets Commission; and (iii) that the said Exchange shall submit to the Commission such periodical returns and information with regard to its working procedure, trading activities, etc.. as may be called for by the Commission from time to time. Mustard Oil CAKE'

(3) After the grant of the Certificate of Registration, the Company carried on business relating to forward contracts among its various members in mustard seed oil cake, and continued the said business till June 1. 1964, when future contracts in mustard seed oil cake were prohibited by a notification (Annexure R. 1) issued by the Government of India under section 17 of the Forward Contracts Act. According to the Company, it stopped transacting the business relating to forward contracts in the said oil cake immediately after the publication of the notification.

(4) Then, purporting to act in pursuance of condition (i) in the Certificate of Registration, the Forward Markets Commission sent a communication (Annexure C), dated June 2, 1964, to the Company directing it not to commence trading in non-transferable specific delivery contracts in any commodity without obtaining the prior approval of the Forward Markets Commission in writing. Thereupon, the Company represented to the Forward Markets Commission that no Certificate of Registration or approval was required for its business relating to non-transferable specific delivery contracts, and that the Forward Markets Commission had no authority or jurisdiction to impose any restriction upon the Company restraining the latter from carrying on its business relating to non-transferable specific delivery contracts in A view of the provision in section 18(1) of the Forward Contracts Act. The Forward Markets Commission, however, did not agree with the submission of the company and insisted that the latter could not transact any business relating to non-transferable specific delivery contracts in respect of any commodity without its prior permission.

(5) Yet, on or about January 30, 1965, the Company allowed its members to enter into non-transferable specific delivery contracts with regard to mustard seed oil cake. The said contracts were entered into by various members, and the Company acted as a guarantor. Thereupon, on March 31, 1965, the Government of India issued a notification (Annexure R.-2(i) ) under section 18(3) of the Forward Contracts Act banning non-transferable specific delivery contracts in respect of mustard seed oil cake, and consequently the Company had to stop its business in view of the said notification.

(6) Thereafter, the Company started dealing in groundnut oil and allowed its members to enter into non-transferable specific delivery contracts with regard to ground-nut oil. On May 31, 1965, two officers of the Forward Markets Commission, namely, Shri M. R. Maya and Shri M. W. Chambookkur, along with the police, raided the premises of the Company. According to the Company, they took away certain records and documents from the premises and warned the Company that it should not allow its members to enter into any non-transferable specific delivery contracts in respect of ground-nut oil or any other commodity without the prior approval of the Commission, and in Q case they did so, they would be prosecuted and further penal action would be taken against them under the provisions of the Forward Contracts Act.

(7) Aggrieved by the said action of the Forward Markets Cornmission, the Company and its two members, Madan Lal and Budh Parkash, filed a Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh praying, inter alia, that an appropriate writ or direction may be issued quashing the direction given by I the Forward Markets Commission in its letter (Annexure C) dated June 2, 1964, as being illegal, ultra virus and contrary to the provisions of the Forward Contracts Act, and that a direction be given to the Union of India and the Forward Markets Commission not to interfere with the work or business of the Company and its members in so far as it related to non-transferable specific delivery contracts. The said Writ Petition was, owever, dismissed as withdrawn on March 29, 1967. Thereafter, the Company and its two members, Madan Lal and Budh Parkash, filed in this High Court the Writ Petition (C.W. 360) of 1967) out of which this appeal has arisen, praying that the provisions of section 14A of the Forward Contracts Act and Rule 7A of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Rules as well as the direction contained in the letter (Annexure C) dated June 2, 1964, be quashed as being illegal, ultra virus and void, and that a direction be issued to the Union of India and the Forward Markets Commission not to interfere with the business of the Company and its members relating to non-transferable specific delivery contracts under or in pursuance of the condition (i) contained in the Certificate of Registration (Annexure B), dated December 7, 1963, and the direction in the letter (Annexure C), dated 2, 1964.

(8) The respondents to the writ petition were (1) The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, and (2) the Forward Markets Commission, Government of India. The said respondents filed a counter-affidavit in opposition to the writ petition.

(9) It appears from the judgment of the learned single Judge that although some arguments regarding the virus of section 14A and Rule 7A were addressed initially by the learned counsel for Messrs Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Ltd. and others. the final and the only argument that was pursued by the said counsel was that the condition (ii) contained in the Certificate of Registration and the direction issued by the Forward Markets Commission through its letter, dated June 2, 1964, were beyond the powers of the Commission under the provision in section 14A of the Forward Contracts Act. By his judgment, dated July 27, 1967, the learned Judge held that out of the three conditions contained in the Certificate of Registration, there could be no objection to condition (i), though any direction given pursuant to the said condition would have to satisfy the test as to whether it was a lawful direction within the competency of the Forward Markets Commission under the provision in section 14A of the Forward Contracts Act or not, and that condition (ii) was foreign to the scope of the conditions contemplated by section 14A of the Forward Contracts Act, and Form F, to the extent to which it prescribed such a condition, would be ultra virus the A powers of the Central Government in-as-much as it was inconsistent with section 14A of the Act. As regards the direction ssued by the Forward Markets Commission through its letter, dated June 2, 1964, the learned Judge held that the said direction also was beyond the jurisdiction of the Forward Markets ' Commission and was, thereforee, of no legal validity. In the result, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition and declared that condition (ii) contained in the Certificate of Registration, dated December 7, 1963, and the direction contained in the letter dated June, 2, 1964, were beyond the powers of the Commission. Accordingly, the learned Judge restrained the respondents to the writ petition from enforcing the said condition and direction against M/s Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Limited. The learned Judge added that he was not called upon to express and did not, thereforee, express any opinion as to whether M/s Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Limited or the writ petitioners together should continue to engage in the business relating to non-transferable specific delivery contracts in respect of ground nut oil or any other commodity. It is against the said judgment that the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the Union of India and the Forward Markets Commission. Messrs Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Limited, Madan Lal, and Budh Parkash, were imp leaded as respondents I to 3 respectively in the Letters Patent Appeal.

(10) The decision of the learned single Judge was based mainly on the following grounds :-

(1)that the words 'carry on such business' which occur in section 14A of the Forward Contracts Act mean the manner or method of carrying on the business, that the conditions in accordance with which section 14A requires the business to be carried on must, thereforee, relate to the manner or method of carrying on the business, that condition (ii) in the Certificate of Registration does not relate to the manner or method of carrying on the business, but imposes a ban on the carrying on of the business by the Association except with the previous approval of the Forward Merkets Commission in any commodity other than the I commodity mentioned in the Certificate of Registration, and that the condition (ii) is, thereforee, not a condition such as is contemplated by section 14A, and hence beyond the powers of the Forward Markets Commission; (2) that the said condition (ii) in the Certificate of Registration has also the effect of superseding and displacing the statutory provision contained in section 17(1)(3) that the condition (ii) prohibits the conduct of forward trading, that in the absence of a definition of the expression 'forward trading' in the Act, it must be taken to be of the widest amplitude covering the entering into every type of forward contract dealt with by the Act, that such a sweeping prohibition does not amount to a condiction relating to the manner or method of carrying on the business of forward contracts, that the said condition is, thereforee, foreign to the scope of the conditions contemplated by section 14A of the Forward Contracts Act, and that Form F prescribed under Rule 7A of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Rules is, to that extent, ultra virus the powers of the Central Government; (4) that a restriction on the fundamental right of a citizen to carry on a business, guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India, would be upheld only if it is expressly provided in a statute, and that the same cannot be derived by implication, and that the power to impose such conditions should not be implied within the compass of section 14A(1) when specific and sufficient powers to control, regulate or prohibit forward trading qua areas and commodities have been vested in the Central Government under sections 15, 17 and 18 of the Act, and there is no reason why the Forward Markets Commission which is not co-ordinate with but is subordinate to the Central Government should be held to have been given similar powers; (5) that there is ample power with the Central Government under sections 15, 17 and 18(1) and (3) of the Act to prohibit the entering into non-transferable specific delivery contracts in respect of specified goods in the interest of trade and public, and there is no reason why the grant of power should be duplicated and conferred also upon the Forward Markets Commission; (6) that while section 6 of the Act provides that when the Central Government accords recognition to an Association, it shall, in such recognition, specify the goods with respect to which forward contracts may be entered into by the members of the recognised Association, there is no such A provision in section 14A as regards the specification of goods in respect of which forward trading can be carried on; and (7) that any direction that can be given pursuant to condition (i) in the Certificate of Registration must be a lawful direction within the competency of the Forward Markets Commission under the provision in section 14A of the Forward Contracts Act, and that for the reasons given with regard to condition (ii), the direction given by the Forward Markets Commission in the letter (Annexure B), dated June 2, 1964, was not a lawful direction within the competency of the said Commission under the provision in section 14A of the Forward Contracts Act, and hence without any legal validity.'

(11) It may be stated that in support of the aforesaid grounds, the learned Judge relied upon the decision in Bullion and Agricultural Produce Exchange Limited v. The Forward Markets Commission, 1966 Allahabad Law Journal 499(1), which dealt an identical question as in the present case.

(12) Shri Radhey Mohan Lal, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that a Certificate of Registration granted under Chapter Iiia could validly include a condition requiring the registered Association not to conduct forward trading in any commodity other than the commodity specified in the Certificate except with the previous approval of the Forward Markets Commission, that condition (ii) contained in Form F and in the Certificate granted to Respondent 1 was not extraneous or foreign to the provision in section 14A and was quite valid, and that the decision of the learned single Judge as well as the decision in the case of Bullion and Agricultural Produce Exchange Limited (Supra )(1) were erroneous.

(13) For a proper appreciation of the contention of the learned counsel, it is necessary to refer briefly to the scheme of the Forward Contracts Act, and the scope and effect of the provisions in sections 14A, 15, 17 and 18 of the Act. The preamble to the Act, shows that the object of the legislation is to provide for the regulation of certain matters relating to forward contracts, the prohibition of options and goods, and matters connected therewith. For the purpose of achieving the said object, Chapter Ii of the Act provides for the establishment of a Commission called the Forward Markets Commission which is to discharge the various functions enumerated in section 4, and which is for that purpose empowered to exercise the powers mentioned in section 14A of the Act. The said provisions regarding the establishment of the Forward Markets Commission and its functions and powers are all contained in Chapter Ii of the Act.

(14) Chapter Iii of the Act, which consists of sections 5 to 14, provides for recognition of associations which are concerned with the regulation and control of forward contracts. Such associations which are desirous of being recognised for the purposes of the Act, may apply under section 5 to the Central Government, and recognition may be granted to them by the Central Government under section 6 of the Act. Upon such recognition, the recognised associations are subject to the Control of the Central Government as well as the Forward Markets Commission in various ways provided in the sections in Chapter III. There may, however, be associations which do not apply for recognition. Provision has, thereforee, been made in Chapter III-A, which consists of sections 14A, 14B and 14C, for compulsory registration of all associations, whether recognised or unrecognised. Section 14A provides that no association concerned with regulation and control of business relating to forward contracts shall, after the commencement of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Amendment Act, 1960, carry on such business except under and in accordance with, the conditions of a Certificate of Registration granted under the Act, by the Forward Markets Commission. Every association which was in existence at the commencement of the Forward Contracts (Regulatuion) Amendment Act 1960, was required to apply for registration within six months from the said commencement. Section 14B empowers the Forward Markets Commission either to grant or refuse a Certificate of Registration to an association which applies under section 14A. Section 14C applies to the provisions of sections 8 and 12B in Chapter Iii to such registered associations.

(15) Chapter Iv, consisting of sections 15 to 19, contains general I provisions regarding forward contracts and options in goods. Forward contracts have been broadly divided into (1) non-transferable specific delivery contracts, (2) transferable specific delivery contracts and (3) other forward contracts commonly referred to as future or hedge contracts. Section 15 and 17 dealt with all forward contracts. Section 15 provides, inter alia, that the Central Government may, by notification declare the section to apply to such goods' or class of goods and in such areas as may be specified in the notification, and thereupon, subject to the provisions contained in section 18, every forward contract for the sale or purchase of anyj goods specified in the notification which is entered into in the area specified therein otherwise than between the members of recognised association or through or with any such member shall be illegal. In other words, no forward contract will be allowed to be entered into in. respect of the commodities specified in the notification under section 15 in the area mentioned in the said notification except by or through a member of a recognised association. Section 17 provides, inter alia, that the Central Government may, be notification declare that no person shall, save with the permission of the Central Government, enter into any forward contract for the sale or purchase of any goods or class of goods specified in the notification and to which the provisions of section 15 have not been made applicable, except to the extent and in the manner, if any, as may be specified in the notification. Sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 18 deal with non-transferable specific delivery contracts. Section 18(1) provides that the provisions contained in Chapter Iii or Chapter Iv shall not apply to non-transferable specific delivery contracts for the sale or purchase of any goods, and that no person shall organise or assist in organising or be a member of any association in any area to which the provisions of section 15 have been made applicable(other than a recognised association) which provides facilities for the performance of any non-transferable specific delivery contract of any party thereto without having to make or to receive actual delivery to or from the other party to the contract or to or from any other party named in the contract. Section 18(3), however, provides that if the Central Government is of the opinion that in the interest of the trade or in the public interest it is expedient to regulate and control non-transferable specific delivery contracts in any area, it may, by notification declare that all or any of the provisions contained in Chapter Iii or Chapter Iv shall apply to such class or classes of non-transferable specific delivery contracts in such area and in respect of such goods or class of goods as may be specified in the notification, and may also specify the manner in which and the extent to which all or any of the said provisions shall so apply.

(16) Coming now to the Contention of the learned counsel, his argument was that the condition (ii) mentioned in Form F and in the Certificate of Registration prohibiting the registered asso- ciation from conducting forward trading in any commodity other than the commodity specified in the Certificate of Registration except with the previous approval of the Commission is within the powers of the Forward Markets Commission, and that it cannot be said that the imposition of the said condition is foreign to and is not contemplated by section 14A. As already stated, section 14A prohibits an association concerned with the regulation and control of business relating to forward contracts from carrying on such business except under, and in accordance with, the conditions of a Certificate of Registration granted under the Act by the Forward Markets Commission. As pointed out by Ismail J. as well as Pathak J., it is obvious that the conditions mentioned in section 14A(1) must be such as are related to the 'carrying on of the business'. The words 'carrying on of the business' can only mean the conduct of the business, i.e., the method or manner of carrying on the business. There is no reference to any commodity in section 14A(1), and it does not refer to carrying on of business relating to forward contracts in respect of any specified commodities. The words 'carrying on such business' are of wide amplitude and they include the carrying on of business relating to forward contracts in respect of any commodity or commodities. They do not, it seems to us, contemplate a restriction of the business to certain commodity or commodities or a prohibition against doing such business in respect of other commodities. We are, thereforee, of the opinion that a condition limiting the business to certain commodity or commodities specified in the Certificate of Registration and prohibiting the carrying on of business in respect of other commodity or commodities except with the' approal of the Forward Markets Commission is not contemplated by section 14A and is, thereforee, foreign or extraneous to the same. The inclusion of such a condition in Form F by means of Rules 7A and in the Certificate of Registration issued in the instant case to Messrs Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Limited is thus contrary to and inconsistent with the provision in the main section 14A(1) and has, thereforee, to be held to that extent to be invalid in law as no rule can be made in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with the provision in the relevant section of the Act.

(17) Shri Radhey Mohan Lal pointed out that under section 14B, it is open to the Forward Markets Commission to grant or to refuse a Certificate of Registration, and that the power to refuse to grant a certificate would imply that the Commission can as well restrict the Certificate to a specific commodity or cornmo- dities and require the holder of the certificate not to carry on the A business relating to forward contracts in respect of any other commodity or commodities without the previous approval of the Forward Markets Commission. There is no force in this argument. The provision in section 14B is not separate from or independent of the provision in section 14A but is related to it. If we are correct in our view that section 14A does not contemplate a restriction of the Certificate to any particular commodity or commodities, the application for a Certificate of Registration under section 14A(1) need not mention any commodity or commodities, and under section 14B the Commission, on receipt of that application, has only to make such enquiry as it considers necessary regarding the applicant, and in case it is inclined to refuse to grant the Certificate asked for it has to do so only after giving an opportunity of being heard in the matter to the applicant. There is no question of any enquiry being made under section 14B regarding any commodity or commodities.

(18) The learned counsel also pointed out that in the instant case Messrs Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Limited had itself asked for registration in mustard seed oil cake, and argued that the Forward Markets Commission was, thereforee, justified in granting a certificate of registration in respect of mustard seed oil cake only subject to the condition that the applicant should not carry on business in respect of any other commodity without the previous approval of the Commission. There is no force in this argument also. If under the provision in section 14A the question of restricting the certificate of Registration to certain specified commodity or commodities does not arise and is foreign to the said provision, it means that the Forward Markets Commission has no power to restrict the Certificate to certain specified commodity or commodities or to prohibit the applicant from carrying on business relating to forward contracts in respect of other commodities except with the previous approval of the Commission. The Forward Markets Commission is a creature of the Act, and when the Act does not confer the power upon it, it is obvious that it cannot claim to have that power merely because the applicant mentioned certain specific comodity in his application. In other words, the fact that the applicant specified a commodity in its application is of no consequence.

(19) The view expressed above regarding section 14A(1) derives support from certain circumstances referred to by Ismail J. and A Pathak J. Specific and sufficient powers to control, regulate or prohibit forward trading quo areas and commodities have been conferred on the Central Government under sections 15, 17 and 18 of the Forward Contracts Act, and there is no reason why the legislature should be held to have intended to duplicate the power by conferring the same on the Forward Markets Commission which is not co-ordinate with but is subordinate to the Central Government. Under section 18(1) and (3) of the Forward Contracts Act the Central Government has been given the power to permit or prohibit the entering into non-transferable specific delivery contracts in respect of specified goods in the interest of trade and public. To imply the conferment of that power on the Forward Markets Commission also by section 14A(1) would only be to impute an intention to the legislature to duplicate the power without any valid reason. Further, it has to be noted that while section 6 of the Forward Contracts Act which deals with recognition of an association provides that when the Central Government accords recognition to an association, it shall, in such recognition, specify the goods with respect to which forward contracts may be entered into by the members of the recognised association, there is no such provision in section 14A(1) as regards the specification of goods or commodities in respect of which forward trading can be carried on.

(20) For all the reasons discussed above, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by Pathak J. in the case of Bullion and Agricultural Produce Exchange Limited (supra) (1) and by M.M. Ismail J. in the present case that condition (ii) specified in Form F and in the Certificate of Registration prohibiting the Association from conducting forward trading in any commodity other than the commodities specified in the Certificate except with the previous approval of the Commission is extraneous or foreign to the provision in section 14A(1), and is thus ultra virus the powers of the Forward Markets Commission and hence a nullity.

(21) It cannot be disputed that any direction that can be given pursuant to condition (i) in the Certificate of Registration has to be a lawful direction within the competency of the Forward Markets Commission under the provision in section 14A(1) of the Forward Contracts Act. thereforee, for the reasons given with regard to condition (ii), the direction given by the Forward Markets Commission in the letter (Annexure B)' dated June 2, 1964, was not a lawful direction within the competency of the said Commission under the provision in section 14A(1), and hence without any legal validity.

(22) Shri Radhey Mohan Lal pointed out to us that an objection A as raised in the affidavit filed in opposition to the writ petition that Messrs Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Limited is not entitled to invoke Article 19 of the Constitution of India for the reasons (1) that it is a limited company and (2) that the said Article was suspended during the Emergency as proclaimed by the President of India and the company cannot, thereforee, move the Court complaining of any alleged violation of the said Article 19 of the Constitution. No such contention appears to have been urged before the learned single Judge. In any case, our decision is based on an interpretation of the provision in section 14A of the Forward Contracts Act and not on any alleged violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. There is thus no force in the objection.

(23) For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge rightly declared that the condition (ii) contained in the Certificate of Registration, dated December 7, 1963, issued to Messrs Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Limited, and the direction contained in the letter, dated June 2, 1964, from the Forward Markets Commission to the said Company are beyond the powers of the Commission, and rightly restrained the appellants herein (respondents in the writ petition) from enforcing the said condition and direction against the petitioners in the writ petition. The Letters Patent Appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs in the appeal.


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