PETITIONER:
MAHABIR BEOPAR MANDAL LTD
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
FORWARD MARKET COMMISSION
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/01/1977
BENCH:
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
CITATION:
1977 AIR 1562 1977 SCR (2) 604
1977 SCC (1) 729
ACT
Forward Contract (Regulation) Act 1952--Secs. 14A, 14B--
Forward Market-- Commission--Power to impose conditions.
HEADNOTE
The appellants contended that the Forward Market Commis-
sion under the Forward Contract (Regulation) Act 1952
cannot impose conditions under sections 14A and 14B on
the commodities in respect of which business can be carried
out by persons who apply for registration. Secondly, the
provisions. contained in s. 4 of the Act do not confer power
on the Commission to impose conditions. Thirdly, in respect
of recognised associations, the Commission had no power to
impose conditions with regard to commodities in which they
deal.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: All the 3 conditions raised in the present appeal
are covered against the appellant by the decision of this
Court in the case of Union India v. M/s Rajdhani Grain and
Jaggery Exchange Ltd. reported in [1975], Supp, SCR 1.
[605 B-F]
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 873 of 1975..
(From the Judgment and Order dated 11-11-1974 of the
Allahabad. High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
6976/74)
AND
Civil Appeal No. 1748 of 1975.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated’ 8-11-1974 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 6932/74).
AND
Civil Appeal No. 1425 of 1974.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 1-9-1972 of the
Allahabad. High Court in Special Appeal No. 8/66).
A.N. Parekh, for the appellants in CA 1748/75.
Yogeshwar Prasad, for the appellants in CA 873/75.
D.N. Misra for the appellant in CA 1425/74.
L.N. Sinha, Solicitor General, S.N. Prasad (In CA 873/75)
and Girish Chandra, for the respondents iii all the appeals.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, C.J. Civil Appeals Nos. 873 and 1425 are by cer-
tificate under Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India
and Civil Appeal No. 1748 is by special leave.
605
(Ray, C.J.)
These appeals turn on the question whether the Commis-
sion described as the Forward Market Commission under the
Forward Contract (Regulation) Act, 1952, can impose condi-
tions under section 14-A and Section 14-B on the commodities
in respect of which business can be carried on by persons
who apply for registration.
This Court in Union of India & Anr. v. M/s. Rajdhani
Grains and Jaggery Exchange Ltd. & Ors. (1975 Supp. S.C.R.1)
dealt with this specific question and came to the conclusion
that the specification of the commodities in respect of
which the business can be carried on is a condition con-
cerned with the regulation and control of the business
relating to forward contracts. It is idle to suggest that
the Commission in granting certificate of registration to
carry on business will not be competent to specify the
commodities in which the persons asking for registration
will deal.
Another contention was raised before us that the provi-
sions contained in Section 4 of the Forward Contract (Regu-
lation) Act-1952 do not confer power on the Commission to
impose conditions. This contention is also repelled by the
decision of this Court to which reference has already been
made. It has been held in that case that the Commission
alone is vested with power to impose conditions in regard to
commodities in respect of which forward contracts can be
entered into by a particular association. Sections 15 to 18
of the Act do not clash with the power of the Commission to
impose conditions in respect of commodities in which busi-
ness of forward contract can be carried on.
Another contention was advanced before us that with
regard to the recognised associations the Commission had no
power to impose conditions with regard to commodities in
which they deal. This contention is also answered by the
decision of this Court (supra). Further the provisions
contained in Chapter III-A specifically deal with registra-
tion of all associations concerned with regulation and
control of forward contracts and the power of the Commis-
sion to grant or refuse such certificate of registration.
All contentions advanced by the appellants are already
answered’ by the decision of this Court (supra) and the
observations made herein. The appeals are therefore dis-
missed. There will be no order as to costs.
P.H.P.
Appeals dismissed.
606