A later legislation will not be held to have impliedly repealed an earlier legislation unless the two are so inconsistent that they cannot stand together.

Headnote:
BOMBAY FORWARD CONTRACTS CONTROL ACT, 1947 - S. 8 - ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES (TEMPORARY POWERS) ACT, 1946 - S. 3 - COTTON CONTROL ORDER, 1950 - NOTIFICATION DATED 16-7-1953 - REPEAL BY IMPLICATION - FORWARD CONTRACTS - LEGALITY - Held, that S. 8 of the Bombay Act is not rendered inoperative by the notification issued under the Cotton Control Order, 1950, which is a Central legislation, on the ground of an implied repeal of the former by the latter.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs, who were members of the East India Cotton Association, entered into forward contracts with the defendant for the purchase of cotton. The contracts were not made in accordance with the bye-laws of the Association, as required by S. 8 of the Bombay Forward Contracts Control Act, 1947. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for damages for breach of contract. The defendant contended that the contracts were illegal and void under S. 8 of the Bombay Act. The plaintiffs contended that S. 8 was rendered inoperative by a notification issued by the Textile Commissioner on 16-7-1953 under the provisions of the Central Cotton Order, 1950, which was issued in exercise of the powers conferred on the Central Legislature by the Essential Supplies (Temporay Powers) Act , 1946.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that S. 8 of the Bombay Act was not rendered inoperative by the notification issued under the Cotton Control Order, 1950, which is a Central legislation, on the ground of an implied repeal of the former by the latter.
Issues: Whether S. 8 of the Bombay Forward Contracts Control Act, 1947 is rendered inoperative by the notification issued under the Cotton Control Order, 1950, which is a Central legislation, on the ground of an implied repeal of the former by the latter.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the two legislations can co-exist and there would, therefore, be no implied repeal of section 8 of the Bombay Act. The Court observed that the Bombay Act was intended for the regulation and control of forward contracts, while the notification issued by the Textile Commissioner relased the prohibition on contracts in cotton which was imposed by the Cotton Control Order, 1950. The Court further observed that the notification was not intended to be an exhaustive and exclusive legislation dealing with the subject of delivery contracts regarding cotton crop of 1953-54 in the State of Bombay.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed First Appeal No. 380 of 1955. First Appeal No. 561 of 1955 and First Appeal No. 562 of 1955 were allowed, the decrees passed by the trial court were set aside and the plaintiffs suits were dismissed.

JUDGMENT - (8) The principal point of controversy which has been agitated at considerble length in these appeals is whether S. 8 of the Bombay Forward Contracts Control Act, 1947 (LXIV of 1947), which will hereafter be referred to as the Bombay Act, has been rendered inoperative by virtue of a notification issued by the Textile commissioner on 16-7-1953 under the provisions of the central Cotton Order, 1950, which order itself was issued in exercise of the powers conferred on the Central Legislature by the Essential Supplies (Temporay Powers) Act , 1946 (XXIV of 1946), which will hereafter be referred to as the Essential Supplies Act. As we have already indicated. the other law point which was raised on behalf of the plaintiffs in these suits was wherther the Bombay Act was also redered inopertative by virtue of the notification applying s. 15 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (74 of 1952). That notification was issued on 30-7-1954, that is to say, long after all the contracts in suit, and it has been fairly conceded on behalf of the plaintiffs in asll these appeals that in view of this position it will not be possible to press the argument urged in the lower Court regarding any repugnancy between the Bombay Act and the provisions of the Forward contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952.

(9) In order to appreciate the point as to the alleged repugnancy betweeen the Bombay Act and the notification issued under the Central Cotton Control Order of 1950, it is necessary to note, to some extent, the history of the two legislations. So far as the local legislation is concerned, in 1922 the local Legislature passed the Bombay Cotton Contracts Act (XIV of 1922), but admittedly it had no provision reagarding forward contracts. That was followed by the Bombay Cotto Contracts Act, 1932 (IV of 1932), which made certain provision regarding forwards contracts. It appears, however, that the Government of Bombay, in the year 1947, was of the view that the control exercised by government over the cotton market under the Bombay Cotton Contracts Act of 1932 had proved ineffective in actual practice and though the Act provided that forward contracts other than those made through recognised association were void, in fact forward trading took place outside recogniseed associations and in a manner which was detrimental to genuine trade interests. That is why the Provincial Legislature enacted the Bombay Act and it came into force on 7-2-1948. The object of the Act was to provide for the regulation and control of forward contracts, for prohibition of options and certain other purposes, in the Province of Bombay. It has top be mentioned that though S. 1 of this Act was to come into force at once, sub-section (3) of S. 1 provided that the Provincial government may by notification in the Official gazette direct that all the remaining sections other than ss. 4, 5 and 7 shall come into force in the whole of the Province of Bombay or such part thereof and on such date and in their application to such goods as may be specified in the notification. Under sub-section (4), the Provincial Government was also empowered by a notification in the Official Gazette to direct that Ss. 4, 5 and 7 shall come into force in the whole of the Province of Bombay or such part thereof and on such date and in its application to such goods as may be specified in the notification. Four notification appeasr to have been issued by the Provincial Government on 1-4-1948. By notification No. 4132/33 D(1), it was directed that Ss. 2, 3, 6 and 8 to 15 of the Bombay Act were to come into force in the whole of the Province of Bombay with effect from 1-4-1948 in their applicartion to cotton. By Notification No. 4132/33-D(2), Ss. 4,5 and 7 were also brought into force in the whole of the Province of Bombay in their application to cotton with effect from the same date. The third notification No. 4132/33-D(3) issued on the same dat specified in respect of cotton a period of seven days aft

Click Here to Read the rest of this document