SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(AP) 76

P.JAGMOHAN REDDY, VENKATESAM
Miryala Venkateswarlu and Co – Appellant
Versus
Battula Venkata Peraiah and Venkateswarlu and Co – Respondent


JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been referred to the bench by our learned brother Ekbote, J. , In view of the important question raised as it is likely that more than one case is affected and also because there is no direct authority available.

( 2 ) THE question that falls for determination is a simple one, whether the contract in question is hit by Section 15 read with Section 2 (c) of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 74 of 1952 (herein called the Forward Contracts Act ).

( 3 ) THE appellant and the respondents are merchants whose business consists of buying and selling ginned cotton. The appellant agreed to sell 60 bales of Narasaraopet Bale Cotton at the rate of Rs. 332. 00 per putti of 784 Ibs. before 25-11-1955 the payment to be made after the weighment of bales and to be delivered at the site of Raleigh Company or Valcot Company. This agreement was entered into on 10-11-1955. When the goods were not delivered, the respondent filed a suit to claim damages for the non-performance and breach of the contract.

( 4 ) THE appellant raised several contentions, one of them being that the transaction is hit by the Forward Contracts Act. IN view of that plea, a










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top