JUGAL KISHORE RAMESHWARDAS v. MRS. GOOLBAI HORMUSJI
Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 857; 1955 INSC 22
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI , T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR, BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA
Judgment date:
Case summary
1955 INSC 22. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1955-04-04. JUGAL KISHORE RAMESHWARDAS v. MRS. GOOLBAI HORMUSJI. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
into individual acts which the donor is capable of per-forming and which he appoints his attorney to :, Exhibit A, is the one provided under the Rules for ready delivery contracts, whereas Form A in Appendix H is, as already stated, for forward contracts. Thus, contracts which are regu-lated by Rules 359 to 363 cannot be forward contracts contemplated by Rule 167, and they cannot be held to be void under that Rule. The error in the argument of the respondent is in mixing up two different provisions· enacted by two different authorities and reading the one into the other. The rules framed by the Association form a code complete in itself, and any question arising with reference to those rules must be determined on their construction, and it would be a mistake to read into them the statutory provisions enacted in Act VIII of 1925. In this view, the contract notes; Exhibit A, cannot be held to be void under rule 167.
In the result, we must hold, differing from the learned Judges of the court below, that the arbitration proceedings are not incompetent and that the award made therein is not void on the ground that the contracts containing the agreement are void. The respondent contested the validity of the award on several other grounds. They were rejected hy the City Civil Judge and in the view taken by the learned Judges of the High Court that the contract notes were void under section 6 of Act VIII of 1925, they did not deal with them. Now that we have held that the contracts are not void, it is necessary that the appeal should be heard on those points. We accordingly set aside the order of the court below, and direct that the· appeal he . reheard . in the light of the observations contained herein. As the appeal succeeds on a point not taken in the courts below, the parties will bear their own costs through-out. The costs of the further hearing after remand will be dealt with by the High C9urt.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.