Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MAHABIR BEOPAR MANDAL LTD versus FORWARD MARKET COMMISSION

Decided
13 January 1977
Judges listed
A.N. RAY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1977] 2 S.C.R. 604 · 1977 INSC 9

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

RAY, C.J. Civil Appeals Nos. 873 and 1425 are- by certificate under Article 133 (1) of the Constitution of India and Civil Appeal No. 1748 is by special leave.

p. 604, margin H

605

p. 605

(Ray, C.J.)

p. 605

These appeals turn on the question whether the Commission described as the Forward Market Commission under the Forward Contract (Regulation) Act, 1952, can impose conditions 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.

p. 605, margin A

This Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Mis. Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Ltd. & Ors. (1975 Supp. S.C.R. l) 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 concerned 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 wi11 deal.

p. 605, margin A

Another contention was raised before us that the .provisions contained in Section 4 of the Forward Contract (Regulation) 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 business of forward contract can be carried on.

p. 605, margin C

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 registration of all associations concerned with regulation and control of forward contracts and the power of the Commission to grant or refuse such certificate of registration.

p. 605, margin E

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 dismissed, There will be no order as to, costs. P.H.P. Appeals dismissed.

p. 605, margin F