RAGHUBAR DAYAL JAI PRAKASH versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

RAGHUBAR DAYAL JAI PRAKASH versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Sections 5, 6, 10, 15, and 16 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952, as challenged, are constitutionally valid. They do not contravene Articles 14, 19(1)(c), 19(1)(f), or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The powers given to the Government are sufficiently guided by the Act’s objectives, and the restrictions imposed are reasonable. The Act does not delegate legislative powers excessively nor confer arbitrary authority.

Parties
Petitioner: Raghubar Dayal Jai Prakash; Respondent: The Union of India; Respondent: Kaisergunj Beopar Co. (P) Ltd., Meerut
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 September 1961
Procedural Posture
Petitions Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for Enforcement of Fundamental Rights / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petitions dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Regulation of Forward Contracts, Recognition of Trade Associations, Reasonableness of Restrictions on Fundamental Rights, Delegation of Legislative Power
Constitutional Law Commercial Law Regulation of Forward Contracts Recognition of Trade Associations Reasonableness of Restrictions on Fundamental Rights Delegation of Legislative Power

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raghubar Dayal Jai Prakash

Petitioner

The Union of India

Respondent

Kaisergunj Beopar Co. (P) Ltd., Meerut

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petitions Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for Enforcement of Fundamental Rights / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ss. 5, 6, 10, 15, and 16 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 violate Articles 14, 19(1)(c), 19(1)(f), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the power conferred on the Central Government under the Act is unguided and arbitrary
  3. 3 Whether the restrictions imposed by the Act are reasonable under Articles 19(5) and 19(6)

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 5, 6, 10, 15, and 16 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952, as challenged, are constitutionally valid. They do not contravene Articles 14, 19(1)(c), 19(1)(f), or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The powers given to the Government are sufficiently guided by the Act’s objectives, and the restrictions imposed are reasonable. The Act does not delegate legislative powers excessively nor confer arbitrary authority.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Petitions fail and are dismissed with costs, one set of hearing-fees.