M/S. BINANI COMMERCIAL CO., LTD versus RAMANLAL, MAGANLAL MEHTA

M/S. BINANI COMMERCIAL CO., LTD versus RAMANLAL, MAGANLAL MEHTA

The Government notification was valid. Section 4(1)(c) does not require fixing an immutable arithmetical maximum. Section 4(2)(a) is enabling and does not mandate differentiated maxima by class or locality. The agreement to sell in excess of the maximum quantity fixed is void by operation of s. 5(1)(c).

Parties
Appellant: M/s. Binani Commercial Co., Ltd.; Respondent: Ramanlal Maganlal Mehta
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 May 1961
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Decree Dated August 22, 1955, of the Bombay High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Control of Supply, Statute Empowering Government to Fix Sale Maximum, Validity of Notification, Supply and Prices of Goods Act, Agreement to Sell More Than Maximum Quantity, Void Agreements
Contract Law Statutory Interpretation Trade Regulation Control of Supply Statute Empowering Government to Fix Sale Maximum Validity of Notification Supply and Prices of Goods Act Agreement to Sell More Than Maximum Quantity +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/s. Binani Commercial Co., Ltd.

Appellant

Ramanlal Maganlal Mehta

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Decree Dated August 22, 1955, of the Bombay High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Government notification fixing the maximum quantity of non-ferrous metals that may be sold is valid
  2. 2 Whether an agreement to sell more than the maximum quantity fixed is void under s. 5(1)(c) of the Supply and Prices of Goods Act, 1950

Ratio Decidendi

The Government notification was valid. Section 4(1)(c) does not require fixing an immutable arithmetical maximum. Section 4(2)(a) is enabling and does not mandate differentiated maxima by class or locality. The agreement to sell in excess of the maximum quantity fixed is void by operation of s. 5(1)(c).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs.