DR. INDRAMANI PYARELAL GUPTA versus W.R. NATHU AND OTHERS.
The amended bye-law 52AA is not ultra vires; it was validly made by the Central Government under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, empowering the Commission to close out hedge contracts, including contracts subsisting at the time of notification, with retrospective effect.
- Parties
- Appellant: Dr. Indramani Pyarelal Gupta; Respondent: W.R. Nathu and Others
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 11 April 1962
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (special Leave) / Final Decision on Appeal From the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 20 of 1956
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed (majority); validity of the impugned bye-law upheld
- Legal Topics
- Forward Contracts Regulation, Retrospective Operation of Bye Laws, Powers of Statutory Commissions
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dr. Indramani Pyarelal Gupta
Appellant
W.R. Nathu and Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (special Leave) / Final Decision on Appeal From the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 20 of 1956
Legal Issues
- 1 Validity of amended bye-law 52AA and its power to operate retrospectively
- 2 Whether the Commission can be legally empowered to close out hedge contracts including existing contracts
Ratio Decidendi
The amended bye-law 52AA is not ultra vires; it was validly made by the Central Government under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, empowering the Commission to close out hedge contracts, including contracts subsisting at the time of notification, with retrospective effect.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed (majority); validity of the impugned bye-law upheld
Orders
- Appeal stands dismissed with costs in favour of respondents
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment