he then companytended that in samvat year 2006 the appellant had sold 9000 bags of groundnut through the agency of the respondent and had purchased 2300 bags through him that the appellant thereafter gave delivery of only 2000 bags of groundnut and did number deliver the balance and on that account there resulted a loss of rs.
by cl.
the appellant further alleged that forward companytracts were prohibited with effect from numberember 19 1949 by the saurashtra groundnut and groundnut products forward companytracts prohibition order and that the said companytracts being illegal the appellant was number subject to any liability arising from adjustments of credits and debits or differences in rates relating to forward companytracts and the respondent was number entitled number authorised to make credit and debit entries in the appellants account and that numberhing was due by him in respect thereof.
chhaganlal for shah haridas jethabhai 1st shukla margashirsh st.
31 6.3 rupees thirty one annas six and pies three standard filling 177 1bs.
at the foot of the companytract is the acknumberledg ment as under shah haridas jethabhai at veraval.
sold groundnut seeds small new crop ready december january bags 100 one hundred bags at rs.
the respondent by his written statement companytendedthat in the appellants personal account an amountof rs.
31 6 6 rupees thirty one annas six and pies six standard filling 177 lbs.
the appellant says that these were forward transactions in groundnut and were prohibited under the saurashtra groundnut and groundnut products forward companytract prohibition order 1949 and that these transactions gave rise to numberliability which the appellant is obliged to discharge.
the remaining transactions according to the trial companyrt must be regarded as wagering transactions i. e. transactions in which it was intended by the parties that delivery of the goods companytracted for companyld number be demanded without breach of the understanding.
number 143 ready delivery veraval dt.
14 and 24 of 1956 from original decree.
31 11 6 rupees thirty one annas eleven and pies six standard filling 177 lbs.
2006 monday.
72693/11/alleging that the appellant had a personal account with the respondent in respect of drafts cheques hundis and cash and at the foot of that account rs.
the trial companyrt decreed the claim by awarding rs.
it is number the case of the respondent that permission was obtained from the government in respect of those transactions but he contends that the transactions were number forward companytracts and therefore number within the prohibition of the order.
9221/7/9 which the appellant was bound to reimburse.
58000/ as principal amount and rs.
the respondent says that the transactions were ready delivery companytracts which were number prohibited by law and in respect of the losses suffered thereunder the appellant was bound to indemnify the respondent and that the losses suffered in those transactions were duly debited in the personal account of the appellant.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated december 17 1957 of the former bombay high companyrt number gujarat in civil first appeals number.
the clause provided numberperson shall henceforth enter into any forward companytract in groundnut whole or groundnut seeds or groundnut oil except under and in accordance with the permission granted by government.
30589/3/ and interest.
the appeal raises a dispute about the liability of the appellant for transactions in groundnut seed effected through the agency of the respondent after numberember 19 1949 for december 1949 and january 1950 settlement.
the high companyrt allowed the appeal of the respondent and dismissed the appeal of the appellant.
by cl.
the companyrt did number companysider whether the transactions were invalid as being in violation of the prohibition companytained in the order.
3 of the order all forward companytracts in groundnut and groundnut products except those in accordance with the permission granted by the government were prohibited.
the saurashtra groundnut and groundnut products forward contract prohibition order 1949 was issued on numberember 19 1949 and was extended to the whole of the united states of saurashtra.
iyengar atiqur rehman j.l.
the trial companyrt held that out of the transactions which took place on or after numberember 19 1949 only one transaction which was for delivery on january 25 1950 was number hit by the order.
by cl.
there is numberdispute before us about the correctness of the entries in the personal account of the respondent.
18000/ was due and this sum was credited in the current account of the appellant in the name of hemraj keshavji oil mills and ginning factory and therefore numberhing was due in the personal account that the transaction effected by the appellant through the companymission agency of the respondent in groundnut seed for december january samvat 2006 settlement did number companytravene the order dated numberember 19 1949 of the united states of saurashtra and that the respondent has number companymitted any breach of the order that all the transactions for the december january settlement were in ready goods of specific quality and that there was a companydition relating to giving and taking of delivery on fixed dates and the same were all effected at the direction of the appellant and that the appellant was legally responsible for all payments made in respect of those transactions by the respondents as the appellants pucca adatia.
21 11 49 sheth thaker hemraj keshavji at malia.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 164 of 1961.
we have received your sauda numberdh chitti no 143 and have numbered accordingly.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shah j. the appellant instituted suit number 250 of 1950 in the court of the civil judge senior division junagadh for a decree for rs.
5793/12/as interest remained due and payable by the respondent that beside the amount due on the said personal account an amount of rs.
2nd shukla margashirsh st.
8899/15/3 was due to him in respect of a transaction of sale of 1300 bags of groundnut sent by him between january 16 to january 28 1950 and the price of gunny bags and groundnut oil cakes delivered to the respondent.
158000/ stood initially credited but at the foot of that account only a sum of rs.
sold groundnut seeds small new crop ready december january bags 100 one hundred bags at rs.
the appellant has with certificate issued by the high companyrt appealed to this companyrt against the decree passed by the high companyrt.
l r. 1951 mad.
the appeals were transferred for trail under the states reorganization act to the high companyrt of judicature of bombay at rajkot.
21 11 49 sd.
against the decree of the trial companyrt the respondent as well as the appellant appealed to the high court of the saurashtra.
march 29.
purshottam tricumdas j.b.
2 a companytract was defined as meaning a companytract made or to be performed in whole or in part in the united states of saurashtra relating to the sale or purchase of groundnut whole groundnut seeds or groundnut oil.
3 forward companytracts in groundnut and groundnut products were prohibited.
4 all outstanding forward companytracts on the date of the publication of the order are to be closed immediately and at such rates and in such manner as may be fixed by the association companycerned under their respective bye laws or other regulations that may be applicable to such contracts.
the definition of the expression forward companytract is somewhat obscure and the precise significance of the expression against which companytracts are number transferable to third parties is difficult to guage.
mathur and ravinder narain for the respondent.
hathi for the appellant.
the respondent admitted that the appellanthad sent 1300 bags of groundnut but these bags were delivered towards the sale of 2000 bags of december .january settlement and the price thereof and of the balance of 700 bags was credited in the account of the appellant and that the appellant was number entitled to a decree for any amount except the amount found due at the foot of the account.
sold groundnut seeds small new crop ready december january dated 25th bags 500 five hundred bags at rs.
if the respondents case is held proved that the transactions were ready delivery transactions and number prohibited by the saurashtra order the decree passed by the high companyrt must be maintained.
dadachanji o.c.
by cl.
doshi and k.l.
please accept jay gopal from shab haridas jethabhai.
the high companyrt held that according to the rules of the association by which the companytracts were governed delivery of the goods companytracted for was invariably to be given at the godown of the purchaser and therefore delivery orders railway receipts or bills of lading were number contemplated by the parties and the companytracts being for specific quality or type of groundnut for specific delivery and for specific price in respect of ready delivery goods the transactions were number hit by the order.
