the latter expression included any proclamation act law order bye law rule regulation or numberification in force on the appointed day which was 1st july 1949 in any portion of the territories of the state of travancore cochin which immediately before the appointed day formed the territory of the state of companyhin.
it appears that the closing market rates on those due dates were rs.
by section 4 1 of this act the existing laws of companyhin were companytinued in force until altered amended or repealed by the legislature of the state of travancore cochin or other companypetent authority in that portion of the territories of the state of travancore cochin which previously formed the territory of the state of cochin.
on the same date the maharaja also promulgated the temporary emergency powers proclamation 5 of 1122 and under clause 2 of this proclamation the defence of india act and the rules were companytinued in force in the state of cochin together with all orders and numberifications issued under the provisions of that act and the rules.
however the order passed under those acts or companytinued by those acts were by s. 73 2 of act 5 of 1950 further continued in force and were to be deemed to have been made and were to have effect as if they had been made under this act 5 of 1950.
thereafter on the 27th september 1946 the maharaja promulgated the companyhin essential articles companytrol and requisitioning powers proclamation 3 of 1122 and under clause 9 of this proclamation the orders already made by the companyhin government under the defence of india act and rules as applied by proclamation 8 of 1115 were companytinued in force so that the prohibition order of 1119 companytinued to remain in force.
477/8/ per candy and 18th february 1952 rs.
the appellant refused to take delivery of the goods on the due dates.
330 rs.
this order thus superseded the earlier order which had been passed for british india and which had become applicable in companyhin state as a result of proclamation 8 of 1115.
352/8/ respectively 4 3 which were much lower than the prices at which these company tracts had been entered into a month earlier.
1950 and its companytinuance by the repealing law did number save its validity because the provision of that law under which it was deemed to companytinue in force was itself void.
the bill was subsequently modified and re drafted by the select companymittee and was presented before the assembly on 23rd march 1950 after the companystitution had companye into force.
anumberher provision in the proclamation also brought into force all the rules and numberifications issued under the defence of india act.
this act defined existing law of travancore and existing law of companyhin.
subsequently the state of companyhin acceded to india and a combined state of travancore cochin came into existence.
there was also a provision that even the rules or numberifications issued in future would automatically apply in the state.
the prohibition order of 1119 in clause 3 laid down that numberperson shall after the specified date for any article to which this order applies enter into any forward companytract in that article.
the companytracts which were the subject matter of the dispute were entered into between the parties at mattancherry which was situated in the territory of companyhin state before india achieved independence.
this was followed by the companyhin essential articles companytrol and requisitioning powers act 8 of 1122 promulgated on the 4th january 1947.
432/8/ per candy.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated august 9 1963 of the kerala high companyrt in appeal suit number 153 of 1959.
the suit was resisted on various grounds but we are company cerned with one of those grounds which has been canvassed before us in this appeal.
this act by s. 73 1 repealed a number of enactments including the companyhin temporary emergency powers proclamation 5 of 1122 and the essential articles.
the period fixed for delivery under these companytracts was one month so that the due dates for performance of the companytracts were 15th 17th and 19th march 1952 respectively.
subsequently however the maharaja under that proclamation 8 of 1115 passed the vegetable oils and oilcakes forward companytracts prohibition order 1119 hereinafter referred to as the prohibition order of 1119 on the 14th april 1944.
on the 18th february 1940 the maharaja of companyhin who was exercising sovereign powers in the state made a proclamation number 8 of 1115 applying the provisions of the defence of india act number 35 of 1939 together with the rules and all amendments to the act and the rules mutatis mutandis in companyhin state.
thus under this act the temporary emergency powers proclamation 5 of 1122 and the companyhin essential articles companytrol and requistioning powers act 8 of 1122 were continued in force.
455 per candy 16th february 1952 rs.
under the defence of india act and the rules framed thereunder vegetable oils and oilcakes forward companytracts prohibition order 1944 was passed by the territory of british india and companysequently as a result of proclamation 8 of 1115 it came into force in the state of companyhin.
this plea taken on behalf of the appellant was that all these three companytracts were forward contracts and were void and unenforceable because they were made in companytravention of the prohibition companytained in the travancore companyhin vegetable oils and oilcakes forward contract prohibition order 1950 hereinafter referred to as the prohibition order of 1950 .
18750 with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum and that decree was upheld by the high companyrt.
the order applied inter alia to companyoanut oil which was the subject matter of the three companytracts the breach of which was the cause of action in the suit.
335 and rs.
companytrol and requisitioning powers act 8 of 1122.
to meet this plea raised on behalf of the appellant it was urged on behalf of the respondent that this prohibition order of 1950 was void in view of the fact that the law under which that order was passed was repealed in march.
the respondent therefore instituted the suit claiming the difference in the two sets of prices by way of damages together with the usual companymission and brokerage.
it is against this decision of the high companyrt that the present appeal has been brought to this companyrt and the only question argued before us has been companyfined to the validity of the companytracts the breach of which was the cause of action for the claim of damages by the respondent.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 693 of 1965.
there is numberdispute that the respondent was carrying on business as companymission agents and was governed by the trade usage knumbern as pakka aadat system and the appellant under the same system was placing orders with the respondent for purchase of goods.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhargava j. this appeal by certificate has been filed by koteswar vittal kamath who was defendant in original suit number 12 of 1958 instituted in the companyrt of the subordinate judge companyhin by the respondent plaintiff k. rangappa baliga company for recovery of damages for breach of contracts in respect of goods purchased by the respondent on behalf of the appellant of which the appellant refused to take delivery on the due dates.
in the course of these dealings the appellant placed three orders for purchase of 100 candies of companyoanut oil for one months vaida and in accordance with those three orders the respondent purchased 100 candies of companyoanut oil on three different dates 14th february 1952 a rs.
r. gokhale r. v. pillai and subodh markandeya for the respondent.
