BABURAM Vs. M/S ROSHANLAL SHRI-KRISHNADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal under Letters Patent in short are that the Plaintiff purchased some sugar from the Defendant hut the Defendant failed to give its delivery. The Plaintiff brought this suit for the recovery of damages thus sustained by him. The trial Court decreed the suit but the District Judge, Gwalior, accepted the appeal and dismissed the Plaintiff's suit. The High Court in appeal No. 27 of 1961, set aside the judgment and decree of the District Judge and decreed the Plaintiff's suit with costs throughout. It is against this judgment that the present appeal under Letters Patent is filed.

(2.) THE main defence in this case was that the transaction was a future in sugar and that according to Sugar & Gur (Futures & Options) (Prohibition) Order 1949, the suit is not entertainable. This contention was rejected by the High Court and it is now again urged that the transaction is a future in sugar. The term, futures in sugar or gur, is defined in the Order referred to above, in Section 2 (d) thus: -

(3.) MR . Bhagwandas Gupta, learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that in determining whether the transaction is in futures or not, it is not necessary that there should also be an agreement for payment of margin and that this third ingredient may be ignored. But he has failed to cite any authority in support of his contention. It is a a well known principle of interpretation of statutes that all words are to be taken into consideration and no word, should be considered as redundant.