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

1954 Supreme(Bom) 75

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
CHAGLA, DIXIT, JJ.
Basantlal Banarsilal
Versus
Bansilal Dagdulal
A.F.O. No.127 of 1953, from order of Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay, in Award No.21 of 1953
Decided On : 29-06-1954

Advocates:
Hemendra K. Shah and M.P. Amin, Advocate-General with Tyabji Dayabhai and Co., for Appellant; J.C. Bhat and C.J. Shah with Mansukhlal Hiralal and Co., for Respondent.

A State Legislature cannot override Central legislation on matters in the Concurrent List unless the State law contains a provision repugnant to the Central law and has been reserved for the consideration of the President and received his assent.

Headnote:

Bombay Forward Contracts Control Act, 1947 - S.8 - Interpretation - Legality of Forward Contracts in Oil Seeds - Repugnancy with Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 - Art.254 of the Constitution - Interpretation - Competence of State Legislature to Override Central Legislation - Bombay Forward Contracts Control Act, 1947 - S.8 (1) (a) - Bye-law 123 - Interpretation - Mandatory Nature of Bye-law - Form of Contract Note - Prescription by Association.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was employed by the respondent as a pucca adatia to effect certain transactions in groundnuts, linseed, castor seeds, and gold. On 26-2-1952, two transactions of purchase were outstanding: 300 tons of groundnuts and 25 tons of linseed. Both were forward transactions for April-May delivery. The respondent instructed the appellant to close the transaction on 26-2-1952, which he did on 5-3-1952. A dispute arose, and the matter was referred to arbitration under the provisions of the Bombay Oil Seeds Exchange, Ltd. The arbitrator made an award in favor of the appellant, but the respondent filed a petition to set aside the award, which was successful.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the forward contracts in question were illegal as they violated the prohibition imposed by the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, which was continued by Act 52 of 1950. The court also held that the Bombay Forward Contracts Control Act, 1947, did not remove the prohibition imposed by the Central law, and even if it did, the prohibition had been reimposed by Act 52 of 1950.

Issues: 1. Whether the forward contracts in question were illegal due to the prohibition imposed by the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, and its continuation by Act 52 of 1950? 2. Whether the Bombay Forward Contracts Control Act, 1947, removed the prohibition imposed by the Central law? 3. Whether the Bombay Forward Contracts Control Act, 1947, S.8 (1) (a), and Bye-law 123, were mandatory in nature, requiring the association to prescribe a form of contract note and the commission agent to use only that form.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Art.254 of the Constitution and held that a State Legislature could override Central legislation on matters in the Concurrent List only if the State law contained a provision repugnant to the Central law and had been reserved for the consideration of the President and received his assent. In this case, the Bombay Forward Contracts Control Act, 1947, did not contain any provision repugnant to the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, and therefore, the State law did not prevail. 2. The court interpreted S.8 of the Bombay Forward Contracts Control Act, 1947, and held that it did not remove the prohibition against forward contracts in oil seeds imposed by the Central law. The court reasoned that S.8 merely declared that forward contracts would be illegal unless they complied with the procedure laid down in the section, but it did not legalize forward contracts that were declared illegal by the Central law. 3. The court held that Bye-law 123 of the Bombay Oil Seeds Exchange, Ltd., which required the association to prescribe a form of contract note and the commission agent to use only that form, was mandatory in nature. However, the court noted that the association had not prescribed a form, and therefore, there was no contravention of the bye-law.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the forward contracts in question were illegal and that the Bombay Forward Contracts Control Act, 1947, did not remove the prohibition imposed by the Central law.

Judgement

CHAGLA, C.J.:- This is an appeal from a judgment of the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court, setting aside an award on a petition made for that purpose by the opponents. On 7-11-1951, the appellant was employed by the respondent as a pucca adatia to effect certain transactions in groundnuts, linseed, castor seeds and gold. On 26-2-1952, two transactions of purchase were outstanding. One was of 300 tons of groundnuts and the other was of 25 tons of linseed. Both these were forward transactions for April-May delivery. The case of the respondent was that he gave instructions to the appellant to close the transaction on 26-2-1952.

In fact the appellant closed it on 5-3-1952, and his allegation was that he was asked to close the transaction on that date. As a result of the closing of the transaction on 5-3-1952, certain amount became due by the respondent to the appellant. In respect of this a dispute arose and dispute was referred to arbitration under the provisions of the Bombay Oil Seeds Exchange, Ltd. The arbitrator made his award on 7-10-1952, awarding to the appellant about Rs.22,000. This award was filed in the City Civil Court, and the respondent filed a petition to set aside the award. As already pointed out, the petition succeeded and the award was set aside.

2. Now, the award has been set aside only on one ground and that ground is that forward transaction is groundnuts and linseed are illegal and therefore the whole contract including the term with regard to submission for arbitration cannot be enforced and therefore the arbitration was bad and the award resulting from that arbitration was equally bad. Under R.81 (2) of the Defence of India Rules an order was issued on 29-5-1943, and by cl.3 of this order it was provided that no person shall, after the specified date, for any class of oil seeds, enter into any forward contract in any of those oil seeds, and in the schedule groundnut and linseed were mentioned as oil seeds in respect of which no forward contract could be entered into from 31-5-1943.

The Defence of India Act expired on 31-9-1946. The British Parliament then enacted 9 and 10 Geo. VI, 1939, and by this statute it was provided that the Central Legislature would have the power to legislate with regard to certain subjects which were in the Provincial List until the date mentioned in that statute, and pursuant to this power conferred upon the Central Legislature the Temporary Powers Emergency Act of 1946 was passed and under this Act the order of 29-5-1943, was continued.

In 1947 the Bombay Legislature passed the Bombay Forward Contracts Control Act, 1947 (Act 64 of 1947), and by S.8 of that Act it declared forward contracts of any goods specified in a notification to be issued under S.1 (3) to be illegal if these were not entered into, made or performed in the manner laid down in that section, and notification was issued under S.1 (3) on 19-12-1950, by the Government of Bombay by which it recognised the Bombay Oil Seeds Exchange, Ltd. as an authorised body which had the power to put through forward transactions under certain circumstances, and on that very day it applied the Act to all varieties of oil seeds.

The Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) would have expired on 1-4-1951, by reason of the provisions of 9 and 10, Geo. VI, 1939, but in the meanwhile our Constitution had been enacted a Art.369 of the Constitution gave to Parliament, during a period of five years from the commencement of the Constitution, the power to make laws with respect to certain matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, and among the matters enumerated were:

"(a) trade and commerce within a State in, and the production, supply and distribution of, cotton and woollen textiles, raw cotton (including cotton and unginned cotton or kapas), cotton seed, paper (including newsprint), foodstuffs (including edible oilseeds and oil), cattle fodder (including oil cakes and other concentrates) coal (including coke and derivatives of coa
































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 Back to top