SHANKARLAL BASDEOPRASAD Vs. MUKUNDILAL CHHUTAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case in which the plaintiffs had sued the defendant in a forward delivery contract in silver bullion. The contract was entered into on 8th May 1943 and the date of delivery was 30th May 1943.

(2.) ON 29th May 1943, the Central Government enacted Rule 90-C, Defence of India Rules. By Clause (2) of this rule it was enacted : "No person shall enter into any forward contract or option in bullion," and by Clause (3) the contravention of this clause was made punishable. The trial Judge held that this prohibition rendered the contract unenforceable as being illegal and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs thereupon filed the present application for revision. The defendant did not appear at the hearing before me.

(3.) NOW in the words 'made or to be performed' the emphasis is on the place of the making and the performance of the contract. The words do not imply that the provision was designed to operate retrospectively so as to make all past transactions illegal. There are no express words in the rule applying it to past transactions nor does such a result follow by necessary implication. It is true that forward delivery contracts in bullion were made illegal but the word 'enter' in Clause (2) shows that it was meant to apply to future transactions. I have been unable to find any ruling expounding the meaning of this clause. In my opinion, the clause must be interpreted as operating prospectively, the clause not having been made retrospective either expressly or by necessary implication so as to engraft the enactment upon the contract of the parties. The judgment and decree of the trial Court are set aside and the case is remanded for disposal according to law.