HEMRAJ SHIVLAL Vs. JOHARMAL RAMKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Mirza, by which the learned Judge passed a decree against the appellant in a suit brought by the respondents to recover the balance due at the foot of an account in respect of various transactions in cotton, linseed, wheat, etc., subsisting between them. Various defences were taken in the lower Court, but they are all now given up, and the only question which is raised on this appeal is, whether certain forward transactions in cotton are valid and binding on the defendant and whether he is liable in respect of those transactions to the plaintiffs. The learned Judge held that he was. The: issue in respect of these transactions is in these terms : "Whether defendant is liable in respect of forward transactions in cotton inasmuch as they are not in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Cotton Act". It is. common ground that the plaintiffs and the defendant were not, at all material times, members of the East India Cotton Association and that the plaintiffs acted as pakka adatias for the defendant in respect of these transactions. The contracts in question were verbal.

(2.) The argument on behalf of the defendant is that even if the parties are not members of the East India Cotton Association, all contracts in cotton for forward delivery, if they are to be performed in Bombay, must be entered into and carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Cotton Contracts Act, 1922. The simple question, as far as I can see,, which arises in this appeal, is, whether the Bombay Cotton Contracts Act and the bye-laws made thereunder will govern a forward delivery contract, entered into between parties neither of whom is a member of the East India Cotton Association.

(3.) The same question arose before me when I was sitting on the original side-in Shantilal V/s. Kevalram1. It was then conceded that there was nothing in the language of the Act nor in that of any of the bye-laws which expressly prohibited a contract of this nature between persons neither of whom was a member of the East India Cotton Association. This is also conceded by Mr. Lalji for the appellant in this appeal.