K. SUBBA RAO, T. L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B. P. SINHA, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. R. MUDHOLKAR
Indramani Pyarelal Gupta – Appellant
Versus
W. R. Natu – Respondent
Judgment
AYYANGAR J.: This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court affirming the judgement of a learned Single Judge whereby a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by appellants was dismissed. By their petition, the appellants challenged the validity of a notification issued by the Forward Markets Commission - a statutory body created by the Forward Contract (Regulation) Act. 1952 (Act LXX1V of 1952), (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the authorities of the East India Cotton Association, Bombay (which will be referred to as the Association.) intimating to them that the continuation of trading in certain types of forward contracts in cotton including that known as "hedge contract" was "detrimental to the interest of the trade and the public interest and to the larger interests of the economy of India" and directed these contracts to be closed out, to be settled at prices fixed in the notification.
2. It is necessary to set out briefly certain facts in order to appreciate the points raised by the appeal. The East India Cotton Association is an "association" which has been recognised by the Central Government under S. 6 o
REFERRE TO : court-wise Chronological. Paras
Straw-board Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Gupta Mill Workers Union
Union of India v. Madan Gopal Kabra
Western India Theatres Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Poona
Hubli Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Province of Bombay
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.