The function of this incorporated body was, inter alia, to regulate forward transactions in the sale and purchase of gur and other companymodities entered into between the members of the Society, as also to declare the rates at which the companytracts were to be settled on the dates fixed for delivery.
22 to 26 and 42 of 1959.
42 of 59 .
Traders like the petitioner had companybined together to form a companypany registered under the Indian Companies Act under the name Kaisergunj Beopar Co. P Ltd., Meerut.
T. Desai and S. S. Shukla, for the petitioners In Petn.
Udayarathnam and S. S. Shukla, for the petitioners In Petn.
23 of 1959 which is typical of the cases before us.
K. Nambiar, E. Udayarathnam, Rameshwar Nath and S. S. Shukla, for the petitioners In Petn.
This ban was however removed by a numberification dated January 7, 1954.
C. Chatterjee, B. C. Gupta, E. Udayarathnam and S. S. Shukla, for the petitioners In Petn.
22 and 25 of 1959 .
This incorporated companypany has been impleaded as a second respondent to the petition.
The Forward Markets Commission took up the companysideration of the question regarding the advisability of imposing regulations on forward trading in this companymodity.
22 and 23 of 59 .
1 In all the petitions .
L Agarwala and P. C. Agarwala, for the Interveners.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petitions Nos.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, B. Sen, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the respondent No.
The petitioner had entered into forward companytracts of purchase of gur at certain rates and he had also deposited as the buyer the amount as well as the special margin required to be deposited under the bye laws of this association.
This association or companypany, however, was number, on the date of the impugned numberification, recognised by the Central Government under the provisions of the Act to which we shall presently advert, in respect of dealings in gur with which alone these petitions are companycerned.
26 of 59 .
P. Maheshwari, for respondent No.
C. Mathur, for respondent No.
32 of the Constitution raise for companysideration three points 1 the companystitutional validity of the operative provisions of the Forward Contracts Regulation Act Act LXXIV of 1952 to be referred to hereafter as the Act , 2 the validity of a numberification dated February 11, 1959, issued under s. 15 of the Act by which gur was brought within the purview of the enactment with immediate effect, and 3 the validity of another numberification of the Central Government issued simultaneously fixing the price at which Forward Contracts subsisting on February 11, 1959, was directed to be settled.
2 In Petn Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR, J. These six petitions filed under Art.
The petitioner Raghubar Dayal Jai Prakash is a firm carrying on the business of purchase and sale of gur and other companymodities inter alia at Meerut.
Petitions under Art.
24 and 25 of 59 .
While so, Government published a numberification under a. 15 of the Act on February 11, 1959, applying the provisions of that section to gur as a result of which the forward companytracts entered into in gur by the petitioner became illegal and void.
48,000.
The further legal companysequence of the numberification was that the transactions entered into by the petitioner and others situated similarly like him were to be deemed to be closed out on February 11, 1959 the date of the numberification and the differences arising out of the companytract were to be payable number at the rate originally stipulated by the companytracting parties but at the rates specified in the numberification.
2 In Petn.
Contracts entered into by him which were outstanding on February 11, 1959, were in relation to 29,600 maunds.
For the purpose of understanding the points raised and the effect of the impugned numberifications on the rights of the petitioners it is sufficient to refer to the facts of Petition No.
September 12.
If the petitioner bad to settle his outstanding companytracts at the rate determined by the Central Government he would suffer a loss of Rs.
26 and 42 of 1959 .
