Mahabir Beopar Mandal LTD. : Chamber Of Commerce: Bullion And Agricultural Produce Exchange LTD. vs Forward Markets Commission

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1977 Supreme(SC) 16

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I. AND M.H. BEG, J.
The Mahabir Beopar Mandal Ltd., Appellant
Versus
The Forward Markets Commission, Respondent.
The Chamber of Commerce, Appellant
Versus
The Forward Markets Commission, Respondent.
The Bullion and Agricultural Produce Exchange Ltd., Appellant
Versus
The Forward Markets Commission and another, Respondents.
(1) In Civil Appeal No. 875 of 1975 :
(2) In Civil Appeal No. 1748 of 1975 :
(3) In Civil Appeal No. 1425 of 1974 :
Civil Appeals Nos. 1425 of 1974, 875 and 1748 of 1975, D/-.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. A. N. Parekh Advocate, (In C.A. 1748 of 1975); Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, Sr. Advocate (in C.A. No. 873 of 1975); Miss Rani Arora and Miss Meera Bali, Advocates, for Appellants Mr. D.N. Misra, Advocate, for Appellant in C.A. No. 1425 of 1974 Mr. L. N. Sinha, Soli, Gen. (Mr. S. N. Prasad, Advocate, (In C.A. 873 of 1975) and Mr. Girish Chandra Advocate with him), for Respondents in all Appeals.

Advocates:
A.N.PAREKH, D.N.Mishra, Girish Chundra, L.N.Sinha, MIRA BAHL, RANI ARORA, S.N.PARSAD, YOGESHAR PRASAD

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 133 (1) - Forward Contract (Regulation) Act, 1952 – Section, 14-A and Section, 14-B - Business of forward contract - Certificate of registration - Another contention was raised before us that provisions contained of Forward Contract Regulation do not confer power on Commission to impose conditions- This contention is also repelled by decision of this Court to which reference has already been made- It has been held in that case that 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 do not clash with power of Commission to impose conditions in respect of commodities in which business of forward contract can be carried on –Held, Another contention was advanced before us that with regard to recognized associations Commission had no power to impose conditions with regard to commodities in which they deal- This contention is also answered by decision of this Court (supra)- Further provisions contained in Chap- III-A specifically deal with registration of all associations concerned with regulation and control of forward contracts and power of Commission to grant or refuse such certificate of registration contention was raised before us that provisions contained of Forward Contract Regulation do not confer power on Commission to impose conditions- This contention is also repelled by decision of this Court to which reference has already been made- It has been that case that Commission alone is vested with power to impose conditions in regard commodities in respect of which forward contracts can be entered into by a particular association do not clash with power of Commission to impose conditions in respect of commodities in which business of forward contract can be carried on – Appeals dismissed

Judgment

RAY, C.J.I. :- Civil Appeals Nos. 873 and 1425 are by certificate 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 S. 14-A and S. 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 v. M/s. Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Ltd., (1975) Supp SCR 1; 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 the 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 S. 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. Ss. 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 recognised 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 Chap. 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.

Appeals dismissed.

For Citation: AIR 1977 SC 1562

Click Here to Read the rest of this document