http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MAHABIR BEOPAR MANDAL LTD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: FORWARD MARKET COMMISSION

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/01/1977

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) 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)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

       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