HEMJRAJ KESHAVJI versus SHAH HARIDAS JETHABHAI

HEMJRAJ KESHAVJI versus SHAH HARIDAS JETHABHAI

Under the rules and regulations of the Veraval Merchants Association, the contracts in question were not transferable to third parties; hence, they do not fall within the prohibited category of forward contracts under the Saurashtra Groundnut and Groundnut Products (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order, 1949.

Parties
Appellant: Hemraj Keshavji; Respondent: Shah Haridas Jethabhai
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 March 1963
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Former Bombay High Court (now Gujarat), Judgment Dated December 17, 1957 in Civil First Appeals Nos. 14 and 24 of 1956 From Original Decree
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contract Transferability, Forward Contracts, Prohibition Orders
Contract Law Commodity Regulation Contract Transferability Forward Contracts Prohibition Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hemraj Keshavji

Appellant

Shah Haridas Jethabhai

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Former Bombay High Court (now Gujarat), Judgment Dated December 17, 1957 in Civil First Appeals Nos. 14 and 24 of 1956 From Original Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contracts for groundnut and groundnut products fall within the prohibition of forward contracts under the Saurashtra Groundnut and Groundnut Products (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order, 1949
  2. 2 Whether absence of express stipulation as to non-transferability in contract means contract is transferable and thereby prohibited
  3. 3 Interpretation of rules and regulations of the Veraval Merchants Association regarding contract transferability

Ratio Decidendi

Under the rules and regulations of the Veraval Merchants Association, the contracts in question were not transferable to third parties; hence, they do not fall within the prohibited category of forward contracts under the Saurashtra Groundnut and Groundnut Products (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order, 1949.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • High Court decree maintained
  • Appellant's suit dismissed