{"id":260477,"date":"1974-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974"},"modified":"2018-02-13T15:01:16","modified_gmt":"2018-02-13T09:31:16","slug":"firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974","title":{"rendered":"Firm Of Pratapchand Nopaji vs Firm Of Kotrike Venkatta Setty & … on 12 December, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Firm Of Pratapchand Nopaji vs Firm Of Kotrike Venkatta Setty & … on 12 December, 1974<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1223, 1975 SCR (3)\t 1<\/div>\n
Author: M H Beg<\/div>\n
Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nFIRM OF PRATAPCHAND NOPAJI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nFIRM OF KOTRIKE VENKATTA SETTY & SONS ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/12\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nBENCH:\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR 1223\t\t  1975 SCR  (3)\t  1\n 1975 SCC  (2) 208\n\n\nACT:\nIndian\tContract  Act<\/a> (9 of 1872) Section 23, 222  and\t224-\nScope of-collateral agreement, when illegal.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant firm sued for amounts as due to indemnify  it\nunder  S.  222<\/a>\tof  the Contract Act,  on  the\tstrength  of\npayments said to have been made by the firm to third parties\non  behalf  of\tthe respondents who  were  alleged  to\thave\ndirected  the appellant to enter into  'Badla'\ttransactions\nfor them. These transactions are contracts for\tspeculation\nin  rise  and  fall  of price of  groundnut  and  oil  seeds\npurchased only notionally without any intention to  actually\ndeliver them to the purchasers.\t In such a transaction,\t the\npurchaser is not at all expected to make a demand for actual\ndelivery of goods ostensibly sold.\nConfirming the judgment of the High Court, held that, having\nregard\tto  the objects 'of the prohibition imposed  by\t the\nCentral\t Government on forward contracts on groundnut  seeds\nand  oil-seeds\tin the interest of general public,  so\tthat\nsupply at reasonable rates of those essential commodities is\nnot jeopardised; the absolute terms of the prohibition;\t the\npenalties  imposed  for its infringement;  and\tthe  careful\nmanner\tin which only those contracts which are for  actual.\ndelivery  and  supply to bona fide purchasers  are  excluded\nfrom  the  prohibition;,  the contracts\t were  tainted\twith\nunlawfulness  of their object and are forbidden by law,\t and\nhence are struck by the provisions of s. 23<\/a> of the  Contract\nAct. [19B-D; 20 D-E]\n(1)  If\t an  agreement is merely collateral  to\t another  or\nconstitutes  an\t aid facilitating the carrying\tout  of\t the\nobject of the other agreement which, though void, is not  in\nitself\tprohibited  within  meaning  of s.  23<\/a>,\t it  may  be\nenforced as    a  collateral  agreement.  If, on  the  other\nhand, it is part of a mechanism meant to defeat what the law\nhas  actually prohibited, the courts will not countenance  a\nclaim based upon the agreement, because, it will be  tainted\nwith an illegality of the object sought to be achieved which\nis hit by the section.\tThe object of an agreement cannot be\nsaid  to  be  forbidden\t or  unlawful  merely  because\t the\nagreement results in what is known as a 'void contract'.   A\nvoid  agreement\t when coupled with other facts,\t may  become\npart of transaction which creates legal rights, but this  is\nno so if the object is prohibited or 'mal in se'. [12D-G]\n(2)  The  question  whether  the parties  through  whom\t the\nappellant actually alleged carrying out the contracts set up\nbetween himself and defendants, could themselves be regarded\nas  Principals\tor  agents of the appellants,  will  be\t im-\nmaterial  if  the objects of the contracts are found  to  be\ntained with the kind of illegality which is struck by s.  23<\/a>\nof  the\t Contract  Act.\t  Again,  the  mere  fact  that\t the\ncontracts  were\t entered  into at Kurnool in  the  State  of\nAndhra\tPradesh\t would\talso  not  make\t any  difference  in\nprinciple  if the object of the contracts which were  to  be\ncarried\t out at Bombay were of such a kind as to be  hit  by\nthe section. [13A-C]\n(3)  The contracts between the appellant and the respondents\nare  not  wagering contracts, though each  Party  knew\tthat\ntheir object was to indulge in speculation. [10C-D]\nBhagwandas Parasram v. Burjori Ruttomji Bomanji<\/a> 45 I.A.\t 29,\n33, referred to.\n(4)  But,  the forward contracts violated the provisions  of\ntwo  Orders  issued  under s. 2(2)<\/a>  of\tthe  Bombay  Forward\nContracts Control Act, 1947. [16A-B]\n2L379Sup.CT\/75\n2\n(5)  Moreover,\ts. 17 of the Essential\tSupplies  (Temporary\nPowers)\t Act,  1946, kept alive the provisions of  the\tOil-\nseeds  (Forward\t Contracts Prohibition)\t Order,\t 1943.\t The\nCentral Act<\/a> is enacted for the control of production, supply\nand  distribution of essential commodities and\tcovers\tfood\nstuffs, Under s. 2(c)<\/a> of the Act food stuffs include  edible\noil-seeds  and oils, and s. 7(2)<\/a> makes the contravention  of\nany  Order under s. 3<\/a>, relating to food stuffs a  crime\t and\npunishable with imprisonment. [16E; 17A-D]\n(6)  The Central Government has issued a notification  under\ns, 5 of the Oil-seeds (Forward Contracts Prohibition)  Order\nbut  the  two  conditions imposed  for\texcluding  contracts\nrelating  the groundnuts are not satisfied in  the  ,present\ncase,  They  are  (a) the contracts must be  in\t respect  of\nspecified  qualities or types, and (b) must be for  specific\ndeliveries  aid\t are not transferable to 3rd  parties.\t The\nword  'and' cannot be read as 'or' and both conditions\tmust\nbe satisfied. The contracts, in the instant case, set up  by\nthe  appellant, were not and could not have been for  actual\ndelivery because they were only 'Badla' transactions. If the\ncontracts  were not for genuine or actual delivery but\tonly\nfor  speculation on differences in prices the condition\t for\nthe  exclusion\tof  the contracts from the  Purview  of\t the\ncontrol\t  Order,   which  contemplates\t actually   intended\ndelivery,would\tnot  be\t satisfied.   The  contracts   were,\ntherefore, prohibited under the provisions of the  Essential\nSupplies  Act,\t1946 read with Central Order  of  1943,\t and\nhence the contracts were not merely void but illegal in\t the\nsense that their objects are forbidden. [18F-19B]\n(7)  A claim for indemnification under s. 222<\/a>, Contract Act<\/a>,\nis  only  maintainable\tif  the acts,  which  the  agent  is\nemployed  to do, are lawful.  Agreements to commit  criminal\nacts are expressly and specifically excluded by s. 224<\/a>\tfrom\nthe  scope of any right to an indemnity.  The provisions  of\nthe  Order of 1943 are applicable throughout India  are\t not\nconfined  to forward contracts entered into or meant  to  be\ncarried\t out  in  any particular part  of  India  and  their\nviolation is a crime, The objects of the contracts set up by\nthe appellants cannot be carried out by merely entering into\nthem outside Bombay or engaging third parties as  sub-agents\nor in any other capacity to execute them. [20C-D]\n(8)  The  High\tCourt  rightly\trelied\ton  those  decisions\nholding agreements ,collateral to prohibited contracts to be\nalso  unenforceable,  because, the taint  attaches  to\tthem\nwhich  makes  them  also contrary to  public  policy.\tSuch\n;agreements  fall  within the class of\tcases  mentioned  in\nGherulal  Parakh  v.  Merhadeodas Maiya &  Ors<\/a>.\t [1959]\t (2)\nSuppl.\tS.C.R. 406, where harmful results of permitting\t the\ncontracts,  in terms of injury to the public at\t large,\t are\nevident and indisputable. [19G-H]\n\t\t\t ARGUMENTS:\nFor  the  Appellants:  (1) The only  contested\tpoint  which\nsurvives  in  the  appeal is whether  the  plaintiffs  acted\nlawfully when they-entered into contracts with the firms  of\nP.W. 2 and P.W. 3 on behalf of the defendants.\n(2)  In\t considering the above question it is  important  to\nnotice that the ,firms of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were  themselves\nthe   commission   agents  of  the   plaintiffs\t  in   these\ntransactions. The findings of both the lower courts are\t (a)\nthat  the  plaintiffs  were the\t commission  agents  of\t the\ndefendants for the said transaction; (b) that the plaintiffs\nacting as principals (i.e. without disclosing their position\nas  agents of the defendants) employed the firms of  P.W.  2\nand   P.W.  3  as  commission  agents  to  carry   out\t the\ntransactions  and (c) the firms of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3  acting\nas  principals entered into the transactions with the  firms\nof P.W. 1.\n(3)  These being the relevant facts, the question is whether\nthe  contracts\tbetween the plaintiffs on the one  hand\t and\nfirms  of  P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 on the other were\tunlawful  by\nvirtue of (a) Bombay Act III of 1865, (b) the Bombay Forward\nContracts  Control Act<\/a>. being Act LXIV of 1947 and  (c)\t the\nOil 'Seeds (Forward Contract Prohibition) Order, 1943.\n3\n(4)  The contracts between the plaintiffs and firms of\tP.W.\n2 and P.W. 3 were not unlawful under the 1865 Bombay Act for\nthe following reasons :-\n(a)  The  plaintiffs did not enter into any  agreements\t \"by\nway  of wager\" (in the words of section _30 of the  Contract\nAct<\/a>) with the firms of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 as they had nothing\nto  gain  or  to lose by the _rise or fall  of\tthe  forward\nmarket\trates  of oil seeds.  A wagering  contract  requires\nthat  the  gain of one party to the contract should  be\t the\nloss  of the other party thereto (vide 45 I-A, 29;  39\tBom.\nL.R.  1083;  1879  Q.B.D.  685;\t Pollock  &  Mulla's  Indian\nContract and Specific Relief Act<\/a>s, page 313; Halsbury's Laws\nof England, 4th Edition Vol. 1 para 809).  By the same test,\nthe  principal contracts between the firms of P.W.  2-3\t and\nthe  firm of P.W. I were also not wagering  contracts.\t The\nfact   is  that\t the  defendants  indulged  in\t speculative\ntransactions through the agency of the plaintiffs, but it is\nwell  settled  that  speculative  transactions\tdo  not\t  by\nthemselves result in wagering agreements.  The courts  below\nerroneously  held, merely from the fact that  no  deliveries\nwere  given or taken, that the transactions were by  way  of\nwager.\t The  lower courts failed to realise that  when\t one\nparty  to  the\ttransactions (defendants in  this  case)  is\ninterested in speculating on market fluctuations, he cancels\nOne  contract by a cross contract, with the result  that  no\ndelivery  takes place, although both the contracts  are\t for\ndelivery,  Since there were no wagers in the  present  case,\nthe Bombay 1865 Act has no application.\n(b)  The  1865\tBombay\tAct does not  contain  any  punitive\nprovision.   It\t merely declares certain  agreements  to  be\nvoid.  Even supposing the agreements between the  plaintiffs\nand the firms of P.W. 2-3 were for wager (which they clearly\nwere  not),  they would merely be void and not\tunlawful  by\nvirtue of the Bombay Act.  Even in that case_ the plaintiffs\nas  agents  are\t entitled to recover  their  dues  from\t the\ndefendants,  as\t held  by this\tHon'ble\t Court\tin  Gherumal\nParakh's  case\t[1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R.  406.   Obviously\t the\nBombay\t1865 Act was not operative in the region  where\t the\ncontracts between the Plaintiffs and defendants took place,\n(5)  The  contracts between the plaintiffs and the firms  of\nP.W.  2-3  were\t not  unlawful\tunder  the  Bombay   Forward\nContracts  Control  Act<\/a> No. LXIV of 1947 for  the  following\nreasons :-\n(a)  Even the principal contracts between the firms of\tP.W.\n2-3  and the firm of P.W. 1 were not unlawful under s. 8<\/a>  of\nthe Act.  The contracts did not violate clause 1(a) of s.  8<\/a>\nof the said Act, because the defendants failed to point\t out\nany bye-law of the Bombay Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. which ren-\ndered  agreements  made in  contravention  thereof  unlawful\n(vide 59 Bom, L.R. 4). The agreement also did not contravene\nclause\t1  (b)\tof s. 8<\/a> since one  of  contracting  parties,\nnamely\tthe  firm of P.W. 1 was a member of the\t Bombay\t Oil\nSeeds  Exchange Ltd. (vide page 32 line 21 and page 55\tline\n26.)\n(b)  In any case, the transactions between the plaintiffs on\nthe  one hand, and the firms of P.W. 2-3 on the other,\twere\nas between principal and agent, and since these transactions\ndid  not  Come under the definition of\tforward\t contracts,\nthey were not affected by the provisions of the '1947 Bombay\nAct.\n(6)  The  transactions between the plaintiffs and the  firms\nof  P.W. 2-3 were not unlawful under the Oil Seeds  (Forward\nContract Prohibition) Order. 1943 read with the Notification\nissued\tthereunder  (page  285 of the paper  book)  for\t the\nfollowing reasons :-\n(a)  The  contracts  between the firms of P.W. 2-3  and\t the\nfirm of P.W. 1 Were \"forward contracts\" as defined by clause\n2(ii)  of  the\t1943 Order, but\t not  the  agency  contracts\nbetween the plaintiffs on the one band and the firm, of P.W.\n2-3 on the other.  These latter contracts were therefore not\naffected  by  the  1943 order and  were\t not  unlawful.\t  As\ndeposed\t to  by the plaintiffs' Partner P.W. 4\t(Paper\tbook\npage  83 line 11), the plaintiffs had never authorised\tthe\nfirms of P.W. 2-3 to enter with any illegal contracts.\tThe\nBadla transactions, which the plaintiffs had authorised\t the\nfirms of P.W. 2-3 to\n4\nenter  into,  could  have been brought\tabout  by  P.W.\t 2-3\nwithout\t  infringing  the  conditions  laid  down   in\t the\nNotifications\tissued\tunder  the  1943  Order.   The\t two\nconditions  in\tthe Notifications were\tthat  the  contracts\nshould\tbe  for specific delivery and  that  the  deliveries\nthereunder  should  not be transferable\t to  third  parties.\nThere  is nothing in the nature of Badla transactions  which\nrequires  that they should not be for specific\tdelivery  or\nthat  the  deliveries  thereunder  should  be  transferable.\nSince it was open to the firms of P.W. 2-3 to carry out\t the\ninstructions  of the plaintiffs in a lawful manner, the\t act\nof  the plaintiffs in entering into the contracts  with\t the\nfirms  of  P.W.\t 2-3 was not an \"unlawful  Act\"\t within\t the\nmeaning of s. 222<\/a> of the Contract Act and the plaintiffs are\ntherefore entitled to be indemnified by the defendants.\n(b)  The  High Court was, with respect, wrong  in  differing\nfrom  the trial court which held that the contracts  between\nthe  firms  of\tP.W. 2-3 and the firm of  P.W.\tI  were\t for\nspecific  delivery.  In the case of Badla transactions,\t the\nmere fact that no deliveries actually take place should\t not\nlead  to  the  inference that the  contracts  were  not\t for\nspecific  delivery.   Both  the\t cross\tcontracts  in  Badla\ntransactions  are  for specific delivery,  but\tno  delivery\ntakes Place because the later contract cancels the effect of\nthe earlier one.  This is clear from the evidence of P.W.  2\nfrom  'pages  39 to 43, were the witness  gives\t details  of\nspecific delivery contracts for the purchase of 400 tons  of\ngroundnut  of  a particular date (vaida),  subsequent  cross\ncontracts for the sale of 400 tons of groundnut of the\tsame\nvaida, and contemporaneous contracts for the purchase of 400\ntons  of  groundnut  of\t the  next  vaida.   Each  of  these\ncontracts  were\t for  specific\tdelivery.   On\tthe'   other\nquestion of transferability, however, both the courts below,\nhave  held that the deliveries under these  contracts,\twere\nnot  made  nontransferable.  To that  extent  the  contracts\nbetween the firms of P.W. 2-3 and P.W. 1 may come under\t the\nmischief  of the 1943 Order.  It was, however, open  to\t the\nfirms  of  P.W.\t 2-3 to carry out the  instructions  of\t the\nplaintiffs in a lawful manner.\n(c)  Having entered into lawful contracts with the firms  of\nP.W.  2 and 3, the plaintiffs were justified in\t paying\t the\nlosses\tincurred in these transactions.\t It was no  part  of\nthe  duty  of the plaintiffs to go to Bombay  and  find\t out\nwhether\t there was any lacuna in the contracts\tbetween\t the\nfirms of P.W. 2-3 and the firm of P.W. 1 so as to enable the\nplaintiffs to avoid paying the dues of the firms of P.W. 2-3\n(vide  Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn.  Vol.   1  paras\n808 and 809; also s. 223<\/a> Contract Act.)\n(d)  S.\t 224<\/a> of the Contract Act has no application  to\t the\nfacts  of the present case, because the plaintiffs  did\t not\ncommit any criminal act in entering into contracts with\t the\nfirms of P.W. 2-3 while carrying out the instructions of the\ndefendants.\n(e) After the issue of the notifications on 31st May,  1943,\nthe  provisions of the 1943 Order were no more\tprohibitory.\nThe provisions were only regulatory.\nFor the Respondents\n1.   Concurrent Findings of the Courts Below\n1.1. There are concurrent findings of the High Court and the\ntrial court, holding\t inter alia,\n(a)  that the suit contracts between the plaintiffs and\t the\ndefendants would defeat\t the   provisions  of  law  or\t are\nprohibited by law and would thus become unenforceable  under\ns. 23 of the Indian Contract Act<\/a>;\n(b)  that  the suit contracts are in the nature of  wagering\ncontracts and are not capable of enforcement;\n(c)  hat the plaintiffs are not entitled to  indemnification\nfrom the defendants under s. 222<\/a> of the Contract Act.\n5\n2.   S. 23 of the Contract Act<\/a>\n2.1. The  suit agreements fall within the ambit of s. 23<\/a>  of\nthe  Contract Act in that they are (a) forbidden by law\t and\n(b) if permitted they would defeat the provisions of law.\n2.2. The   suit\t  contracts  have  as  their   'object'\t  or\n'consideration' (mentioned in s. 23<\/a> of the Contract Act) the\ndoing  of  something which is forbidden\t under\tthe  Central\nOrder of 1943 or under the relevant Bombay Act of 1947.\n2.3. No question of extra-territoriality of the Bombay\tActs\nwould  arise  in view of the fact that although\t the  Bombay\nActs  would  apply only to Bombay State,  nevertheless,\t the\nAgreements  between the parties was with the sole object  of\nbreaking    the\t   said\t  law.\t  The,,\t   terms    'object'\n'consideration',   'forbidden  by  law'\t and   'defeat\t the\nprovisions of any law', under s. 23<\/a> of the Contract Act on a\ntrue  and proper construction operate in respect of any\t law\nand there is no requirement in the said section that such  a\nlaw must be enforced at the place where such an agreement to\nbreak  the  said  law was entered into.\t  It  is  enough  to\nattract\t the  provisions  of s. 23<\/a>  that  the  Agreement  is\nentered\t into with the object of defeating a law and  it  is\nnot an additional requirement that such law which is  sought\nto  be defeated should be in force at the spot or the  place\nwhere  the  agreement  is entered  into.   If  the  contrary\ninterpretation urged by the plaintiffs is accepted, it would\nlead to a perpetuation of a device to defeat the  provisions\nof  law.  To take an instance, supposing there is a  law  of\nprohibition of intoxicating liquor in force in Delhi, and if\ntwo people want to enter into an agreement to break that law\nagainst\t manufacturing and selling such liquor and make\t the\nagreement  enforceable,\t all that they need do\tis  to\tstep\nacross the border into Haryana little beyond Palam  Airport,\nenter  into an agreement and cross back to Delhi  and  still\nmake  an agreement enforceable in the Haryana Courts.\tSuch\nan interpretation would not be in consonance with the  tenor\nof s. 23<\/a> of the Contract Act.\n2.4. Even  if the suit agreement between the plaintiffs\t and\ndefendants were independent agreements, they would be hit by\ns. 23.\tAs a matter of fact, the said agreement between\t the\nplaintiffs and P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4, in Bombay and only in\tthat\nsense  have  been termed collateral  and  such\t'collateral'\nagreements would equally come within the ambit of s. 23<\/a>.\n2.5. The  illegality  of the agreement would also  arise  by\nbeing  devoid of any consideration on law since P.W.  4\t was\nunder no lawful obligation to Pay the moneys to P.W. 2 and 3\nin respect of the said agreement nor were P.W. 2 and 3 under\na legal obligation to pay moneys to P.W. 1.\n3.   Forward Contract Prohibited by law, :\n3.1. The suit transancts, as concurrently held by the Courts\nbelow,\tare  forward contracts, prohibited  by\tthe  Central\nOrder  of 1943 and the Bombay Act of 1947.  Both the  Courts\nbelow have also found that transacts are not exempted  under\nthe  notifications of exemption since the transactions\twere\nadmittedly  of\ttransferable nature (as admitted by  P.W.  1\nhimself).\n3.2. In\t finding the legality of the suit transants and\t the\nplea  of exemption in respect of them. what is\trelevant  is\nwhether\t the  transactions generally are  transferable\t(as.\nadmitted by P.W. 1) and not whether each transaction was  in\nfact transferred or not.\n4.   Indemnification under v. 222 of Contract Act<\/a>:\n4.1. The suit agreements are in the nature of an  employment\nof  the plaintiffs by the defendants and of P.W. 2 and 3  by\nP.W.  1 and to do acts which are criminal according  to\t the\nconcerned laws in view of the fact that such offences render\nthe concerned person liable to fine or improsnment.  By rea-\n6\nsons  of S. 222<\/a> of the Contract Act, the defendants are\t not\nliable\tin  law\t to indemnify  the  plaintiffs\tagainst\t the\nconsequences  of  the said criminal acts for  violating\t the\nconcerned laws.\n4.2. S. 222 of the Contract Act<\/a> requires that the defendants\nshould indemnify P.W. 4 only if the said P.W. 4 was bound to\nmake  payment for the illegal agreements to P.W.s. 2 and  3.\nP.W.  4 was not so bound and therefore the  defendants\twere\nnot  liable  to\t indemnify P.W. 4. Since  the  agreement  of\nagency\twas  null  and void, unlawful and  illegal  and\t was\nfurther devoid of consideration, it cannot form a legal\t and\nvalid basis for the indemnification claim.\n4.3. The  agreement  of\t agency\t in  this  case\t cannot\t  be\ndisassociated  from the consideration or the object  of\t the\nagreement within the meaning of S. 23<\/a> of the Contract Act in\ndeciding  whether the said agreement of agency is  null\t and\nvoid, unlawful and illegal.\n4.4. The  agreements for the sale and purchase of oil  seeds\nin Bombay are in fact between the defendants (represented by\nP.W. 4) and P.Ws. 2 and 3. The transactions between P.Ws.  2\nand  3\ton  the\t one hand and P.W. 1 on\t the  other  do\t not\nmilitate against the fact of the illegal agreements  between\nP.W.  4 on one side and P.Ws. 2 and 3 on the  other,  acting\ntowards\t each  other as principals on either side.   P.W.  4\npaid  P.Ws. 2 and 3 on the basis that P.Ws. 2 and 3 are\t the\nprincipals with whom he was dealing as a principal  himself,\nthat P.Ws. 2 and 3 and P.W. 4 himself were commission agents\ndoes not affect this fact.  This fact of their having  acted\nas  principals\tis a finding on an issue given by  the\tHigh\nCourt and the trial court.\n4.5. If\t P.W. 2 and 3 were not the principal Parties to\t the\nillegal agreements P.W. 4 had no justification at all to pay\nthem  in  respect  of  the  said  agreements  and  to  claim\nindemnification from the defendants under S. 222<\/a>.\n4.6. There   is\t  no  implication   of\t extra\t territorial\njurisdiction  in  either the Bombay legislature\t or  in\t the\nBombay\tCourts involved in the plea of the defendants.\t The\nagreements  between the defendants (acting through  P.W.  4)\nand  P.Ws. 2 and 3 (or even P.W. 4) are agreements to  which\nthe  Bombay  Law applies and the  lawful  enforceability  of\nwhich  agreement  in the Bombay State  must  be\t established\nbefore P.W. 4 can call upon the defendants to indemnify\t him\nfor payments made in the Bombay state in respect of the said\nagreements.   The payments are even otherwise invalid  under\nthe  laws  relating  to sale and purchase of  oil  seeds  in\nIndia.\n5.   Wagering Contracts :\n5.1. The four sets of agreements (a) between P.W. 4 and\t PW.\n2,  (b)\t between P.W. 4 and P.W. 3. (c) between P.W.  2\t and\nP.W.  1 and (d) between P.W. 3 and P.W. 1 for  the  purchase\nand  sale  of groundnut and castor seed\t were  contracts  as\nbetween\t principal  and Principal and amounted\tto  wagering\ncontracts  prohibited and rendered null and 'void,  unlawful\nand illegal by Bombay Act III of 1865.\n5.2. The law in Bombay State relating to wagers and the\t law\nin India relating to prohibition of sale and purchase of oil\nseeds  cannot be circumvented by the agreements referred  to\nin paragraphs above being made between agents of  principals\nand  instead of principals themselves.\tQui facit per  alium\nfacit  per  se.\t A person might not do by means\t of  another\nwhat he is prohibited from doing himself.\n5.3. A\twagering  contract does not cease to be one  by\t the\nintervention of commission agents. or by a principal or\t his\nagent  entering into such a contract with another  agent  or\nthat agent's principal.\n5.4. The decision in [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 406 and [1955]  1\nS.C.R. 439 do not apply to this case because firstly they do\nnot deal with prohibited\n7\nforward\t contracts in Bombay or elsewhere and secondly\tthey\ndo not involve violation of the law of wagering contracts to\nthe State of Bombay under Bombay Act III of 1965.\n5.5. It is to be further noticed that the suit\ttransactions\ndo not conform to the requirements of bye law 123  concerned\nbecause there were neither no contracts notes at all or in a\nfew cases (in which there were contract notes) they were not\nin conformity with the prescribed forms.\n5.6. The   duty\t of  courts  in\t Kurnool  to   prevent\t the\ncircumvention  and  violation of Bombay law cannot  be\tless\nthan the duty of British courts to prevent circumvention and\nviolation  of foreign law when the foreign law is no  repug-\nnant  to  British  law and when the  foreign  country  is  a\nfriendly country.\n6.   'Badla' Transactions :\n6.1.  'Badla'  automatically involves two  or  more  forward\ncontracts.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  2382  to
\n2384 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by special leave from the judgment &  decree  dated
\nthe 27th September, 1967 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
\nA. No. 4-6,\/ 1962
\nM.   C. Chagla, V. M. Tarkunde, H. K. Puri and K. K.  Mohan,
\nfor the appellant. (In all the appeals)
\nB.   V.\t Subramanian,  A. V. Rangam and A.  Subhashini,\t for
\nrespondent  Nos.  2  &\t3 (In  C.A.  No.  2382\/68)  and\t for
\nrespondent nos.\t 1 & 5.\n<\/p>\n
(In C.A. No. 2384\/68)
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBEG, J.-The three consolidated appeals before us by grant of
\nspecial leave are directed against a common judgment of\t the
\nHigh  Court  of\t Andhra Pradesh, by  which  the\t plaintiff’s
\nappeals\t in  three  suits,  filed  on  similar\tfacts,\twere
\ndismissed.   They  can\tbe decided by us  or.  the  question
\nwhether the contracts set up by the plaintiff-appellant were
\nstruck by the provisions of Section 23<\/a> of the Contract Act.
\nThe section reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “23.   The  consideration\t or  object  of\t  an
\n\t      agreement is lawful. unless-it is forbidden by
\n\t      law; or
\n\t      is  of  such a nature that, if  permitted,  it
\n\t      would defeat the provisions of any law; or
\n\t      is fraudulent; or
\n\t      involves\tor implies injury to the  person  or
\n\t      property of another; or
\n\t      the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to
\n\t      public policy.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      In  each of these cases, the consideration  or
\n\t      object of an agreement is said to be unlawful.
\n\t      Every,  agreement\t of  which  the\t object\t  or
\n\t      consideration is unlawful, is void”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
The appellant, Firm of Pratapchand Nopaji, is the plaintiff.
\nin all the three suits, but the defendants of each suit, the
\nrespondents before us, are different.  The plaintiff claimed
\nRs. 78,201.15 ans. in ,,original suit No. 106 of. 1954,\t Rs.
\n13,978.4  ans.\tin  original suit No. 107 of  1954  and\t Rs.
\n91,697.4  ans. in original suit No. 114 of 1954, as  amounts
\ndue  to indemnify him under section 222<\/a> of the Contract\t Act
\non  the strength of payments said to have been made  by\t the
\nplaintiff  to third parties on behalf of the defendants\t who
\nare  alleged  to have directed the plaintiff to\t enter\tinto
\n“badla” transactions for them.\tThree other suits,  claiming
\namounts\t alleged  to have been borrowed, also filed  by\t the
\nsame plaintiff, were tried together with these three  suits;
\nbut,  we are not concerned here with the other\tthree  suits
\nfrom the dismissal of which no appeal was preferred.
\nThe character of the contract set up in each case is brought
\nout  by\t paragraph 3 of the original suit No.  106  of\t1954
\nwhere the plaintiff said :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  defendants\tare big merchants  and\thave
\n\t      been carrying on trade outside Dhone, even in
\n\t      places  like  Bombay.  They wanted to  do\t the
\n\t      business\tof purchasing and selling  groundnut
\n\t      seeds  and oil seeds in Bombay market and\t for
\n\t      this   purpose  engaged  the   plaintiffs\t  as
\n\t      commission  agents  to  contact  with   Bombay
\n\t      Commission  Agents,  who\twere  entering\tinto
\n\t      contracts\t with  customers for  purchasing  or
\n\t      selling groundnut seeds and castor oil  seeds,
\n\t      according\t to  the orders\t of  the  defendants
\n\t      which  the plaintiffs were,  communicating  to
\n\t      them.   The Bombay commission agents  used  to
\n\t      give intimation to the plaintiffs of the\tfact
\n\t      of  having executed the orders (the  contracts
\n\t      of  sale or purchase) and the terms, the\trate
\n\t      etc.,  of the contracts.\tThe plaintiffs\twere
\n\t      immediately, communicating the information  to
\n\t      the defendants.  The business was according to
\n\t      the  custom prevailing in the, Bombay  market,
\n\t      viz. the custom of Badla.\t The defendants\t not
\n\t      only agreed in general to abide by the  custom
\n\t      of Badla, but specifically consented to  every
\n\t      such Badla.  At the request of the  defendants
\n\t      the transactions were settled after undergoing
\n\t      a\t  few\tbadlas.\t   Such\t  settlements\twere
\n\t      beneficial to the defendants as the market was
\n\t      falling  and  delay would have  meant  greater
\n\t      loss  when the market was falling\t the  Bombay
\n\t      agents  were pressing for cash  settlement  on
\n\t      pain  of\tdeclaring them as  defaulters  which
\n\t      will result in a disability to do any  further
\n\t      business.\t  The defendants knew this state  of
\n\t      affairs  and they realised that  a  settlement
\n\t      was  the only course beneficial to  them.\t  So
\n\t      they  specifically  told the  plaintiffs\tthat
\n\t      they   must   at\tany  cost   preserve   their
\n\t      reputation  in  the  Bombay  market  and\twith
\n\t      plaintiffs.   The defendants hence  agreed  to
\n\t      pay  the\tamount and on their request  and  on
\n\t      their  behalf the plaintiffs paid all  amounts
\n\t      due to the Bombay Commission Agents  according
\n\t      to  the Patties sent by the Bombay  Agents  in
\n\t      respect  of the transactions relating  to\t the
\n\t      defendants.  The defendants also agreed-to pay
\n\t      to the plaintiffs interest on the
\n\t      9<\/span>
\n\t      amounts  so  advanced by the  ‘plaintiffs\t for
\n\t      payment  to  the Bombay agents.\tThe  Bombay,
\n\t      Commission  agents  ‘were\t sending  parties-of
\n\t      ‘transactions  to the plaintiffs.\t As  already
\n\t      stated, at the request of the defendants, the
\n\t      plaintiffs’  paid\t all such losses  and  other
\n\t      charges  according  to  the  patties  sent  by
\n\t      Bombay Commission agents on the promise of the
\n\t      defendants  to repay all such amounts  to\t the
\n\t      plaintiffs with interest.\t The extracts of the
\n\t      accounts\tfiled  with  this  plaint  show\t the
\n\t      transactions  and\t the  amounts  paid  by\t the
\n\t      plaintiffs at the request of and on behalf  of
\n\t      the defendants”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  plaintiff’s  case was that the authority to  engage  in
\nBadla transactions on forward contracts, which are contracts
\nfor the delivery of specified goods on future dates, implied
\nwhat  is known as “continuation” or “carrying over”  in\t the
\nterminology  of the Stock Exchange.  The meaning of  such  a
\ntransaction is given, in Halsbury’s Laws of England-3rd Edn.
\nVol. 36 at p. 547 (para 842) as follows
\n\t      “If a purchaser of securities during a dealing
\n\t      period does not wish to complete his  purchase
\n\t      during the next following settlement period he
\n\t      may arrange to resell for the current  account
\n\t      the securities which he has agreed to buy\t for
\n\t      that  account,  and to purchase  for  the\t new
\n\t      account.\t Conversely, a seller of  securities
\n\t      during  a dealing period who does not wish  to
\n\t      deliver  during the next following  settlement
\n\t      period  may  arrange  to\trepurchase  for\t the
\n\t      current  account the securities which  he\t has
\n\t      agreed  to  sell,\t and to\t sell  for  the\t new
\n\t      account.\t Such an arrangement is known  as  a
\n\t      continuation or carrying over”.\n<\/p>\n
This is explained further and distinguished from a loan\t (at
\npage 548para 845) :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Continuation or carrying-over is in form\t and
\n\t      in  law a sale and repurchase, or\t a  purchase
\n\t      and  resale, as the case may be.\tIt is a\t new
\n\t      contract, and not merely getting further\ttime
\n\t      for, the performance of the old contract.
\n\t      A\t continuation being a contract of  sale\t and
\n\t      repurchase and not a loan, the original seller
\n\t      becomes  again  the,  absolute  owner  of\t the
\n\t      securities  carried over, and is not bound  to
\n\t      redeliver\t the  identical.securities  but\t  an
\n\t      equal  amount  of\t similar  securities.\t If,
\n\t      therefore, he sells the securities taken in by
\n\t      him and makes a profit thereon, he may  retain
\n\t      it  to  his own use.  In the case of  a  loan,
\n\t      however,\tif the lender sells  the  securities
\n\t      deposited,  the borrower may charge  him\twith
\n\t      the price obtained for them if he finds it  to
\n\t      his interest to do so”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Under   the  Defence  of\tIndia\tRules,\t the
\n\t      definition of Badla provides that it “includes
\n\t      a\t contango and a backwardation and any  other
\n\t      arrangement whereby the performance of any
\n\t      10<\/span>
\n\t      obligation  under a contract to take  or\tgive
\n\t      delivery\tof  securities within  a  stipulated
\n\t      period  is  postponed to some future  date  in
\n\t      consideration  of\t the payment or\t receipt  of
\n\t      interest or other charges”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
“Carrying-over or “continuation” is also given as one of the
\nmeanings  of  the  term “contango”  or\t“back-wardation”  in
\nHalsbury’s Laws of England-3rd Edn.  Vol. 36 at p. 548.\t  If
\nwe substitute “goods”, in respect of which forward contracts
\nare  made, for “securities”, we get the exact nature of\t the
\ntransactions set up by the plaintiff in each case.  They are
\nnothing\t short of contracts or speculation in rise and\tfall
\nof  prices  of goods purchased only notionally\twithout\t any
\nintention  to actually deliver them to the  purchasers.\t  In
\nsuch  a transaction, a purchaser is not at all\texpected  to
\nmake a demand for actual delivery of goods ostensibly sold.
\nWe  :find  considerable force in the  plaintiffs  contention
\nthat   at  least  contracts  between  the   plaintiffs\t and
\ndefendants were not wagering contracts although we think, in
\nagreement  with\t the High Court, that each party  knew\tthat
\ntheir  object was to indulge in speculation.  In  Bhagwandas
\nParasram  (A  firm) v. Burjori\tRuttomji  Bomanji,(1)  after
\nexamining  the\tfacts of a case in which a  firm  of  “pucca
\nadatias”  was  authorised.  by\ta  defendant  intending\t  to
\nspeculate in differences, to sell and then to resell for the
\npurpose\t of  making  profits,  it was  found  that,  as\t the
\nplaintiff  could  not  be said to  either  lose\t or  benefit
\ncorrespondingly from variations in price, there could be  no
\nagreement in the nature of a wager between the principal and
\nthe   agent  whatever  may  have  been\tintentions  of\t the
\nprincipal.  It wag held that, in a wagering contract,  there
\nhas to be mutuality in the sense that the gain of one party
\nwould  be  the\tloss of the other on the  happening  of\t the
\nuncertain event which is the subject matter of a wager.\t  It
\nwas pointed out there (at p.33) :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Speculation  does not necessarily  involve  a
\n\t      contract\tby way of wager, and  to  constitute
\n\t      such a contract a common intention to wager is
\n\t      essential.    No\tsuch  intention\t  has\tbeen
\n\t      proved’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We,  therefore, accept the contention of the appellant\tthat
\nthere was no wagering contract between the plaintiff and any
\nof the defendants
\nThe  next question we may consider is whether the  contracts
\nset  up\t could\tbe said to  be\tcollateral  contracts  quite
\nunaffected  by\tthe objects or intentions of  defendants  in
\nentering into these contracts which involved making of other
\ncontracts  which  may or may not be wagering  contracts\t but
\nwere  not  “prohibited”.  Strong reliance  was\tplaced\tupon
\nGherulal  Parakh  v. Mahadeodas Maiya & Ors<\/a>.,(2)  where\t the
\nobject\tof  a  contract or partnership\twas  to\t enter\tinto
\nforward\t contracts for the purchase and sale of wheat so  as
\nto  speculate in rise and fall of price of wheat in  future.
\nThe  object of the partnership was held to be  not  illegal,
\nwithin\tthe  meaning  of section 23<\/a>  of\t the  Contract\tAct,
\nalthough
\n(1) 45 I.A. p. 29 @ 33.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1959] 2 supp.  S.C.R. 406, 431.\n<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
the  business for which the partnership was formed was\theld
\nto involve wagering.  The position was thus summarised there
\n(at p. 431)
\n\t      “The aforesaid discussion yields the following
\n\t      results  (1)Under the common Law of England  a
\n\t      contract of wager is valid and therefore\tboth
\n\t      the primary contract as well as the collateral
\n\t      agreement in respect thereof are\tenforceable;
\n\t      (2)  after  the enactment of the\tGaming\tAct,
\n\t      1845, a wager is made void but not illegal  in
\n\t      the  sense  of  being forbidden  by  law,\t and
\n\t      thereafter  a  primary agreement of  wager  is
\n\t      void    but   a\tcollateral   agreement\t  is
\n\t      enforceable;  (3) there was a conflict on\t the
\n\t      question\twhether the second part of  s.18  of
\n\t      the  Gaming Act, 1845, would cover a case\t for
\n\t      ‘,lie  recovery  of money\t or  valuable  thing
\n\t      alleged  to  be  won upon any  wager  under  a
\n\t      substituted contract between the same  parties
\n\t      : the House of Lords in Hill’s case (1921) (2)
\n\t      K.B. 351) had finally resolved the conflict by
\n\t      holding that such a claim was not\t sustainable
\n\t      whether\tit  was\t made  under  the   original
\n\t      contract of wager between the parties or under
\n\t      a\t substituted  agreement\t between  them;\t (4)
\n\t      under  the  Gaming Act, 1892, in view  of\t its
\n\t      wide   and  comprehensive\t phraseology,\teven
\n\t      collateral  contracts,  including\t partnership
\n\t      agreements, are not enforceable; (53) s. 30<\/a> of
\n\t      the  Indian  Contract Act is  based  upon\t the
\n\t      provisions  of s. 18 of the Gaming Act,  1845,
\n\t      and. though a wager is void and unenforceable,
\n\t      it  is not forbidden by law and therefore\t the
\n\t      object  of  a  collateral\t agreement  is\t not
\n\t      unlawful\tunder s.23 of the Contract Act<\/a>;\t and
\n\t      (6) partnership being an agreement Within\t the
\n\t      meaning of s.23 of the Indian Contract Act<\/a>, it
\n\t      is  not  unlawful, though its.  object  is  to
\n\t      carry    on   wagering   transactions.\t We,
\n\t      therefore,  hold that in the present case\t the
\n\t      partnership is not unlawful within the meaning
\n\t      of s. 23(A)<\/a> of the Contract Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Re.  (ii) Public Policy : The learned  Counsel
\n\t      for the appellant contends that the concept of
\n\t      public  policy is very comprehensive and\tthat
\n\t      in India, particularly after independence, its
\n\t      content  should be measured having  regard  to
\n\t      political,  social and economic policies of  a
\n\t      welfare  State,  and the\ttraditions  of\tthis
\n\t      ancient  country reflected in Srutis,  Smritis
\n\t      and   Nibandas.\tBefore\tadverting   to\t the
\n\t      argument\tof the learned Counsel, it would  be
\n\t      convenient  at  the outset  to  ascertain\t the
\n\t      meaning  of this concept and to note  how\t the
\n\t      Courts in England and India have applied it to
\n\t      different situations.  Cheshire and Fifoot  in
\n\t      their  book  on “Law of Contract”,  3rd  Edn.,
\n\t      observe at page 280 thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t      The  public interests which it is designed  to
\n\t      protect\t  are\t so    comprehensive\t and
\n\t      heterogeneous,  and  opinions as\tto  what  is
\n\t      injurious\t must of necessity vary\t so  greatly
\n\t      with the social and moral convictions, and  at
\n\t      times  even  with\t the  political\t views,\t  of
\n\t      different judges, that it forms a\t treacherous
\n\t      and     unstable\t   ground     for      legal
\n\t      decision……… These questions
\n\t      12<\/span>
\n\t      have agitated the Courts in the past, but\t the
\n\t      present  state of the law would appear  to  be
\n\t      reasonably  clear.   Two observations  may  be
\n\t      made with some degree of assurance.\n<\/p>\n
\t      First, although the rules already\t established
\n\t      by  precedent must be moulded to fit  the\t new
\n\t      conditions  of  a\t clanging world,  it  is  no
\n\t      longer  legitimate for the Courts to invent  a
\n\t      new  head\t of public policy.  A judge  is\t not
\n\t      free  to speculate upon what, in his  opinion,
\n\t      is for the good of the community.\t He must  be
\n\t      content to apply, either directly or by way of
\n\t      analogy, the principles laid down in  previous
\n\t      decisions,  He must expound, not expand,\tthis
\n\t      particular branch (if the law.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Secondly,\t even  though the  contract  is\t one
\n\t      which  prima  facie  falls under\tone  of\t the
\n\t      recognized heads of public policy, it will not
\n\t      be held illegal, unless its harmful  qualities
\n\t      are indisputable.\t The doctrine, as Lord Atkin
\n\t      remarked\tin  a leading case, should  only  be
\n\t      invoked  in clear cases in which the  harm  to
\n\t      the public is substantially incontestable, and
\n\t      does   not  depend  upon\t the   idiosyncratic
\n\t      inferences  of i few judicial  minds……  In
\n\t      popular language…… the contract should  be
\n\t      given the benefit of the doubt.”\n<\/p>\n
If   an\t agreement  is\tmerely\tcollateral  to\tanother\t  or
\nconstitutes  an\t aid facilitating the carrying\tout  of\t the
\nobject of the other agreement which, though void, is not  in
\nitself\tprohibited, within the meaning of section 23<\/a> of\t the
\nContract Act, it may be enforced as a collateral  agreement.
\nIf,  on the other hand, it is part of a mechanism  meant  to
\ndefeat\twhat  the, law has actually prohibited,\t the  Courts
\nwill  not  countenance\ta claim\t based\tupon  the  agreement
\nbecause it will be tainted with an illegality of the  object
\nsought\tto  be achieved which is hit by section\t 23<\/a>  of\t the
\nContract Act.  It is well established that the ,object of an
\nagreement cannot be said to be forbidden or unlawful  merely
\nbecause\t the agreement results in what is known as  a  “void
\ncontract”.  A void agreement, when coupled with other facts,
\nmay become part of a transaction which creates legal rights,
\nbut  this is not so if the object is prohibited or “mala  in
\nse”.   Therefore, the real question before us is : Does\t the
\nagreement between the parties in each case, which was to  be
\ncarried out in Bombay, so connected with the execution of an
\nobject prohibited by either a law applicable in Bombay or  a
\nlaw more widely applicable so as to be hit by Section 23<\/a>  of
\nthe Contract Act?\n<\/p>\n
A  question which has been raised before us is\twhether\t the
\nplaintiff,  who entered into contracts with  third  parties,
\nwho  appeared  as witnesses in the cases now before  us,  so
\nthat these third parties made the purchases and\t settlements
\nin Bombay, the payments for which are the subject matter  of
\nsuits,\twas dealing with them as a principal  to  principal.
\nThe  High Court had found that the relationship between\t the
\nplaintiff and the third parties he employed to conclude\t the
\ntransactions  was  that of a principal\tto  principal.\t The
\nquestion whether the
\n13<\/span>
\nparties\t  through  whom\t the,  plaintiff  actually   alleged
\ncarrying  out of the contract set up between. the  plaintiff
\nand   the  defendants  could  themselves  be   regarded\t  as
\nprincipals  or agents of the plaintiffs-.will  become  quite
\nimmaterial  if the objects of the contracts are found to  be
\ntained\twith the kind of illegality which is struck by\tSec.
\n23  of\tthe  Contract Act<\/a>.  Again, the mere  fact  that\t the
\ncontracts  between  the plaintiff and  the  defendants\twere
\nentered into at Kurnool in the State of Andhra Pradesh would
\nalso not make any difference in principle if the objects  of
\nthe contracts which were to be carried out at Bombay were of
\nsuch  a\t kind  as to be hit by Sec. 23\tof  the\t Act.\tThe,
\nprinciple  which would apply, if the objects are  struck  by
\nSec. 23 of the Contract Act<\/a>, is embodied in the maxim : “Qui
\nfacit per alium facit per se” (What one does though  another
\nis done by oneself).  To put it in another form, that  which
\ncannot\tbe  done  directly may not  be\tdone  indirectly  by
\nengaging  another  outside the prohibited area\tto  (lo\t the
\nillegal\t act within the prohibited area.  It  is  immaterial
\nwhether,  for  the doing of such an illegal act,  the  agent
\nemployed  is  given  the wider powers or  authority  of\t the
\n“pucca\tadatia”,  or,  as the High Court  had  held,  he  is
\nclothed\t with  the powers of an\t ordinary  commission  agent
\nonly.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the opinion already expressed by us, that, at any
\nrate,  the initial contracts between, the plaintiff and\t the
\ndefendants  were not really wagering contracts, we need\t not
\ndeal with the provisions of the Bombay Act No. 3 of 1865 for
\nAvoiding  Wages\t which are declared void by Sec. 30  of\t the
\nIndian\tContract  Act<\/a>.\t We  will,  however,  consider\t the
\napplicability of the provisions of Bombay Forward  Contracts
\nControl Act<\/a>, No. 64 of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as\t the
\n‘Bombay\t Act’)\tand  of\t the)  Oilseeds\t (Forward   Contract
\nProhibition)  Order, 1943, (hereinafter referred to  as\t the
\nControl\t Order), which was kept alive by the  provisions  of
\nSec.  17 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary  Powers)\tAct,
\n1946 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Central Act<\/a>‘).
\nSec. 2, sub s. (3.) lays down
\n\t      “Contract” means a contract entered into, made
\n\t      or to be performed in whole or in part in\t any
\n\t      notified area relating to the sale or purchase
\n\t      of any goods to which this Act applies :
\n\t      Provided that the Provincial Government may by
\n\t      notification  in the Official  Gazette  direct
\n\t      any  contract  or\t class of  contracts  to  be
\n\t      excluded\tfrom  the provisions  of  this\tAct,
\n\t      subject  to such conditions as the  Provincial
\n\t      Government may deem fit to impose”-,
\n\t      Sec. 2, sub-s. (3) lays down:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ” ‘Forward Contract’ means a contract for\t the
\n\t      delivery\tof goods at a future date and  which
\n\t      is not ready delivery contract:”\n<\/p>\n
\t      Sec. 2, Sub. s. (4) enacts
\n\t      “‘Goods’\tmeans any kind of  movable  property
\n\t      and  includes securities but does not  include
\n\t      money or actionable claims;”\n<\/p>\n
\t      Sec. 2, sub. s. (7) reads
\n\t      14<\/span>
\n\t      ”\t Option in goods’ means a contract for\t+.he
\n\t      purchase or sale of a right to buy, or a right
\n\t      to  sell, or a right to buy or sell  goods  in
\n\t      future  and includes a gully, a teji, a  mandi
\n\t      or a tejimandi in goods;”\n<\/p>\n
\t      Sec. 2, sub.s. (9) says
\n\t      “Ready  delivery\tcontract  means\t a  contract
\n\t      which  provides  for delivery and\t payment  of
\n\t      price either immediately or within such number
\n\t      of days not exceeding seven after the date  of
\n\t      the contract and under such conditions as\t the
\n\t      Gazette, specify in this behalf in respect  of
\n\t      any particular goods”;\n<\/p>\n
\t      Sec. 2, sub. s. (1) provides
\n\t      “‘Recognised association’ means an association
\n\t      which is for the time being recognised by\t the
\n\t      Provincial  Government as provided in  Section
\n\t      3<\/a>“;\n<\/p>\n
The recognition of associations is governed by Sec. 3 of the
\nAct,  and  Sec.\t 6,  sub. s.(1) gives  the  power  to  every
\nrecognised  association to “subject to the sanction  of\t the
\nProvincial Government, make and, from time to time, add\t to,
\nvary  or rescind bye-law for the regulation and\t control  of
\nforward\t contracts in goods for which such  association\t has
\nbeen recognised”.\n<\/p>\n
Sec.  6, sub. s.(2)(f) refers specifically to the  power  of
\nthe   recognised  Association  to  lay\tdown,  “the   terms,
\nconditions and incidents of contracts and the forms of\tsuch
\ncontracts  as are in writing”; and, Sec. 6, sub.s.  (2)\t (g)
\ncovers :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “regulating   the\t  entering   into,   making,
\n\t      performance,  rescission\tand  termination  of
\n\t      contracts,    including\tcontracts    between
\n\t      members, or between a commission agent and his
\n\t      constituent  or  between\ta  broker  and\t his
\n\t      constituent   or\tbetween\t a   jatthawala\t  or
\n\t      muccadum\tand  his constituent  or  between  a
\n\t      member  of the recognised association,  and  a
\n\t      person   who   is\t not  a\t member,   and\t the
\n\t      consequences  of insolvency on the part  of  a
\n\t      seller   or   buyer   or\t intermediary,\t the
\n\t      consequences  of\ta breach or  omission  by  a
\n\t      seller  or  buyer and  the  responsibility  of
\n\t      commission  agents, muccadums and brokers\t not
\n\t      parties to such contracts”;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section\t 6<\/a>, sub. s. (2) (i) indicates that “the\t method\t and
\nprocedure  for settlement of claims and\t disputes  including
\nsettlement by arbitrations”; :Section 6<\/a>, sub. s. (3) says :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The    bye-laws\t may   provide\t that\t the
\n\t      contravention of any of the bye-laws shall-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i)   make  a contract which is entered  into,
\n\t      made  or is to be performed otherwise than  in
\n\t      accordance, with the bye-laws void or illegal;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (ii)  render- the member liable to  explusion,
\n\t      suspension,   fine   or\tother\tnon-monetary
\n\t      penalty”.\n<\/p>\n
\t       15<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Sec.  8  of  the Bombay  Act  deals  with\t the
\n\t      illegality   of\tthe   contracts\t  and\t its
\n\t      consequencies as follows
\n\t      “(1)  Every forward contract for the  sale  or
\n\t      purchase\tof,  or\t relating  to,\tany   goods,
\n\t      specified\t in  the  notification\tunder\tsub-
\n\t      section  (3)  of section I  which\t is  entered
\n\t      into, made or to be performed in any  notified
\n\t      area  shall  be illegal if it is\tnot  entered
\n\t      into, made or to be performed-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   in\taccordance with such  by-laws,\tmade
\n\t      ‘under section 6<\/a> or 7 relating to the entering
\n\t      into, making or performance of such contracts,
\n\t      as may be specified in the bye-laws, or\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b) (i)\t between  members  of  a  recognised
\n\t      association,\n<\/p>\n
\t      (ii)  through   a\t member\t of   a\t  recognised
\n\t      association, or\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iii) with   a   member\tof   a\t  recognised
\n\t      association,  provided  that such\t member\t has
\n\t      previously  secured the written  authority  or
\n\t      consent, which shall be in writing if the bye-
\n\t      laws so provide, of the persons entering\tinto
\n\t      or  making the contract, and no claim  of\t any
\n\t      description in respect of such contract  shall
\n\t      be entertained in any civil. court.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)   Any person entering into or making\tsuch
\n\t      illegal  contract\t shall\ton  conviction,\t  be
\n\t      punishable with imprisonment for a term  which
\n\t      may extend to six months or with fine or\twith
\n\t      both”.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section 9 of the Bombay Act lays down :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(1)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in
\n\t      this  Act\t or in any other law  for  the\ttime
\n\t      being in force on a notification being  issued
\n\t      by  the Provincial Government in the  Official
\n\t      Gazette,\toptions or such kinds of options  in
\n\t      such goods and in the whole of the Province of
\n\t      Bombay   or  such\t part  thereof\tas  may\t  be
\n\t      specified\t  in  the  notification\t  shall\t  be
\n\t      illegal.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)   Any person entering into any option made
\n\t      illegal\tunder  sub-section  (1)\t shall,\t  on
\n\t      conviction,  be punishable  with\timprisonment
\n\t      which may extend to six months or with fine or
\n\t      with both”.\n<\/p>\n
The  Andhra  Pradesh High Court had reached  the  conclusion
\nthat  it  was not necessary to decide the  question  whether
\nprovisions  of\tSec.  8 clause 1 (a)  had  been\t contravened
\nprobably because no bye-law made under Section 6<\/a> or 7 of the
\nBombay Act had- been placed before it.\tNo such bye-law\t has
\nbeen  pointed  out  to\tus.  We are,  therefore,  not  in  a
\nposition to hold that there has been an infringement of\t any
\nbye-law.   The High Court had, however, held that there\t had
\nbeen  a\t contravention\tof Sec. 8(1)(b) of  the\t Bombay\t Act
\ninasmuch   as  only  one  of  the  third  parties,   namely,
\nShivdanmal  Agarwal  &\tCo., whose  partner  Ganga  Ram\t was
\nexamined as P.W.1, was shown to be
\n16<\/span>
\na member of a recognised association.  We do not consider it
\nnecessary to decide this question either as it appears to us
\nthat  the Andhra Pradesh High Court was,correct\t in  holding
\nthat the forward contracts under consideration violated\t the
\nprovisions of the two orders set out below
\n(1) No. 7561\/33-D(4), which reads
\n\t      “In  exercise of the powers conferred  by\t the
\n\t      proviso  to  clause (2) of section  2<\/a>  of\t the
\n\t      Bombay  Forward  Contracts Control  Act,\t1947
\n\t      (Bom.  LXIV of 1947), the Government of Bombay
\n\t      is  pleased  to  direct  that  the   following
\n\t      contracts\t  shall\t  be   excluded\t  from\t the
\n\t      provisions of the said Act namely
\n\t      Forward contract for specific delivery of\t any
\n\t      variety  of oil seeds for specified price\t the
\n\t      delivery\torder, railway receipts or  bill  of
\n\t      lading  against which are not  transferred  to
\n\t      the third parties, made or entered into before
\n\t      the  19th December, 1950, and  outstanding  on
\n\t      that date”.\n<\/p>\n
\t      No. 7561\/33-D(2) which says
\n\t      “In  exercise of the powers conferred by\tsub-
\n\t      section (1) of Section 9<\/a> of the Bombay Forward
\n\t      Contracts\t Control  Act, 1947 (Bom.   LXIV  of
\n\t      1947)  the Government of Bombay is pleased  to
\n\t      direct  that all options in all  varieties  of
\n\t      oil seeds shall be illegal in Greater Bombay”.
\nMoreover, as regards oil seeds, we find that the Central Act<\/a>
\nenacted\t  for  the  control  of\t production,   supply,\t and
\ndistribution of essential commodities, covers  “food-stuffs”
\nwhich, under Sec. 2(c), “include edible oilseeds and  oils”.
\nSection\t 3<\/a> (2) (c) to (g) of the Central Act<\/a> authorises\t the
\nCentral Government to pass orders for the purposes given  as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      (c)   for controlling the prices at which\t any
\n\t      essential commodity may be bought or sold;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)   for\t regulating by licences, permits  or
\n\t      otherwise\t    the\t    storage,\t  transport,
\n\t      distribution,  disposal, acquisition,  use  or
\n\t      consumption of any essential commodity;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (e)   for\t prohibiting  the  withholding\tfrom
\n\t      sale  of\tany essential  commodity  ordinarily
\n\t\t\t    kept for sale;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (f)   for\t requiring any person holding  stock
\n\t      of an essential commodity to sell the  whole
\n\t      or  a  specified\tpart of the  stock  at\tsuch
\n\t      prices and to such persons or class of persons
\n\t      or in such circumstances, as may be  specified
\n\t      in the order;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (g)   for regulating or prohibiting any  class
\n\t      of   commercial  or   financial\ttransactions
\n\t      relating\tto  foodstuffs or  cotton  textiles,
\n\t      which, in the opinion of the authority  making
\n\t      the order are, or if unregulated are likely to
\n\t      be, detrimental, to public interest;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      17<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Section 7(2)<\/a> of the Central Act provides that
\n\t      “If  any person contravenes any  order  under,
\n\t      Section 3<\/a> relating to foodstuffs…..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   he shall be punishable with imprisonment
\n\t      for a term which may extend to three years and
\n\t      shall  also  be  liable to  fine,\t unless\t for
\n\t      reasons to be recorded the court is of opinion
\n\t      that  a  sentence of fine only will  meet\t the
\n\t      ends of justice; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   any\t property  in respect of  which\t the
\n\t      order  has  been\tcontravened  or\t such\tpart
\n\t      thereof as to the court may seem fit shall  be
\n\t      forfeited to the Government……..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
As already indicated, Sec. 17 of the Central Act<\/a> keeps alive
\nthe  provisions of Oil-seeds (Forward Contract\tProhibition)
\nOrder, 1943.  The provisions of this Control Order appear to
\nus  to\tbe  so important for the decision  of  the  question
\nbefore us that we reproduce it below in toto.\t  It runs as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “1.  This\t order may be  called  the  Oilseeds
\n\t      (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order, 1943.
\n\t      (2)   It\textends\t to  the  whole\t of  British
\n\t      India.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   It shall come into force at once.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.    In this order….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   “contract” means a contract made, or  to
\n\t      be  performed in whole or in part\t in  British
\n\t      India  relating  to the sale  or\tpurchase  of
\n\t      oilseeds,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  “forward contract” means a contract\t for
\n\t      the delivery of oilseeds at some future date;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) “oilseeds” means any of the oilseeds for
\n\t      the  time being specified in the first  column
\n\t      of the schedule to this Order;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iv)  ‘specified\tdate’  in  relation  to\t any
\n\t      ‘oilseeds\t means\tthe date  specified  against
\n\t      those  oilseeds  in the second column  of\t the
\n\t      schedule to this Order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.   No person shall after the specified date for any  class
\nof  oilseeds,  enter  into any forward contract\t in  any  of
\nthose, oilseeds.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Notwithstanding any.custom, usage or practice,’ of\t the
\ntrade, or the terms of any contract or any regulation of and
\nassociation relating to any contract….
\n(1)  every  forward  contract  in  any\tclass  of   oilseeds
\noutstanding  at the close of business on the specified\tdate
\nshall be deemed to be closed out at such rate as the Central
\nGovernment  may by notification in the Official Gazette\t fix
\nin  this  behalf,  and\tdifferent rates\t may  be  fixed\t for
\ndifferent classes of contracts;\n<\/p>\n
-L379 Sup.  CI\/75
\n18<\/span>
\n(2)  all  differences arising out of any contract so  deemed
\nto  be closed out shall be payable on the basis of the\trate
\nfixed as aforesaid and the seller shall not be found to give
\nand the buyer shall not be bound to take delivery;
\n (3) payment of all differences legally due from a member of
\nan  association\t to another member of  such  association  in
\nrespect of any forward contract closed out under this clause
\nshall  be made to the clearing house of the association\t and
\nfor  the purposes of calculating such differences  the\trate
\nfixed  by the Central Government under sub-clause (1)  shall
\nbe deemed to be the settlement rate fixed by the association
\nunder its bye-laws or other regulations which shall, for the
\nrelevant  purpose,  continue to have effect subject  to\t the
\nprovisions of this Order.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  The  Central  Government may, by  Notification  in\t the
\nOfficial Gazette, exclude any contract or class of contracts
\nfrom  the provisions of this Order. (Noti.  No. P  and\tS.C,
\n75(1)\/43, dated 31st May, 1943).”\n<\/p>\n
A  Notification was issued on 31-5-1943 under Sec. 5 of\t the
\nabove  mentioned Order, the relevant part of which reads  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “I  Forward Contracts for groundnut,  linseed,
\n\t      mustard\tseed,  rapeseed\t or   toriaseed\t  of
\n\t      specified qualities or types and for  specific
\n\t      delivery\t at   a\t specified   price….\t not
\n\t      transferable  to\tthird parties  are  excluded
\n\t      from- the provisions of this Order (Noti.\t No.
\n\t      P & S.C. 75 (2)\/43, dated 31st May, 1943)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      11.   No P.& S.C. 75 (A) 1\/43 -In exercise of
\n\t      the  powers  conferred  by  clause  5  of,  the
\n\t      Oilseeds\t (Forward   contracts\tProhibition)
\n\t      Order, 1943, the Central Government is pleased
\n\t      to  exclude the following class  of  contracts
\n\t      from   the  provisions  of  the  said   Order,
\n\t      namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “Forward\tcontracts  for castor  seed,  cotton
\n\t      seed  or sesamum (tit or jinjil)\tor  specific
\n\t      qualities\t or types and for specific  delivery
\n\t      orders,  railway receipts or bills  of  lading
\n\t      against  which contracts are not\ttransferable
\n\t      to, third parties.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Learned\t Counsel  for  the  appellant  contended  that\t the
\nContracts under consideration for groundnut seeds and castor
\nseeds  are excluded under the above  mentioned\tnotification
\nbecause\t they  satisfy, in each case, the first of  the\t two
\nalternative  conditions of exclusion.  These conditions\t for
\ncontracts  for sale of ground-nut seeds are : (1) they\tmust
\nrelate\tto  specified  qualities  or.  types  for   specific
\ndeliveries at a specified price; and, (2) they should not be
\ntransferable  to third parties.\t Excluded forward  contracts
\nfor  castor  seeds  must  (a) be  in  respect  of  specified
\nqualities or types; and (b) be for specific delivery orders,
\nrailway\t receipts, or bills of lading against which are\t not
\ntransferable to third parties.\tThe Trial Court had accepted
\nthe  contention\t that  it  is enough that  one\tof  the\t two
\nconditions are satisfied and bad read the word ‘and’ in\t the
\nabove  mentioned  notification\tis  the\t equivalent  of\t the
\ndisjunctive
\n19<\/span>
\n‘or’.\tThe  contention of the respondents,  that  the\tHigh
\nCourt rightly, held that the word “and’ cannot be  converted
\ninto an “or” and that both the conditions must,be satisfied
\nfor  an\t exemption,  appears  to us  to\t be  correct.\tWe,,
\ntherefore,  hold  that\tthe  contracts\tunder  consideration
\nbefore\tus  were  prohibited under  the\t provisions  of\t the
\nEssential Supplies Act read with the Central Order of  1943.
\nThey  were  not shown to be covered by\tthe  conditions\t for
\ntheir exemption from prohibition.\n<\/p>\n
Having\tregard to the objects of the prohibition imposed  by
\nthe Central Government on forward contracts on,\t inter-alia,
\nground-nut  seeds  and\toil-seeds, in the  interest  of\t the
\ngeneral\t public, so that the supply at reasonable prices  of
\ncommodities  essential to the life and well being of  masses
\nof the people is not jeopardized, the absolute terms of\t the
\nprohibition,the penalties imposed for its infringement,\t and
\nthe  careful  manner  in  which\t only  those  contracts\t are
\nexcluded from the prohibition which are for actual  delivery
\nand  supply to bang fide purchasers, we agree with the\tHigh
\nCourt  that  the contracts under consideration\tare  tainted
\nwith  an unlawfulness of their object and are  forbidden  by
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court had given very good reasons for accepting the
\nview   of   the\t Trial\tCourt  that  the   contracts   under
\nconsideration could not possibly be for actual delivery,  It
\nobserved  that the total quantity of groundnut\tseeds  alone
\nshown  to  have been originally purchased on behalf  of\t the
\ndefendants  was\t 950  tons which  would\t have  required\t two
\nspecial\t goods\ttrains\tto transport  them  from  Bombay  to
\nKurnool,  where\t such a huge quantity  of  ground-nut  seeds
\ncould not possibly be required.\t Indeed, Kurnool itself\t has
\nso much of groundnut seeds that, far from importing any,  it
\nexports them.  The plaintiff did not specifically set up any
\ncase  of contracts for actually intended delivery.   On\t the
\nother  hand, contracts set-up were for\tBadla  transactions,
\nwhich  are not, as we have already indicated, understood  to
\nbe contracts for actual delivery.  To assume in intention to
\ndemand actual deliveries from the mere form of the contracts
\nwould be to believe, very naively, that they were  contracts
\nfor  the proverbial carrying of coals to Newcastle.  If,  as
\nboth  the Trial Court and the High Court have rightly  held,
\nthe  contracts were not for genuine or actual  delivery\t but
\nonly for speculation on differences in price, even the first
\ncondition  for\texclusion  of these  transactions  from\t the
\npurview\t of the control order, which  contemplates  actually
\nintended  delivery, would not be satisfied.  Hence, we\thave
\nno  doubt  in our minds that the contracts were\t not  merely
\nvoid  but  illegal  in\tthe sense  that\t their\tobjects\t are
\nforbidden.\n<\/p>\n
We  think that the High.  Court correctly distinguished\t and
\nrefused to apply authorities recognising  the enforceability
\nof agreements collateral to what are merely void Agreements.
\nIt rightly relied on decisions holding agreements collateral
\nto  prohibited contracts also to be unenforcible  because  a
\ntaint  attaches\t to them which makes them also\tcontrary  to
\npublic\tpolicy.\t  Such agreements fall within the  class  of
\ncases  mentioned  in Gherulal Parakh’s\tcase  (supra)  where
\nharmful\t results  of permitting the contracts, in  terms  of
\ninjury to the public at large, are evident and indisputable.\n<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
In  Shivnarayan Kabra v. The State of Madras<\/a>(1), this  Court
\ndealing with the objects of similar legislation contained in
\nthe  Forward Contract (Regulation) Act<\/a>, 1952, said  at\tpage
\n144:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “…the  Act was passed in order in  order  to
\n\t      put a stop undesirable forms of speculation in
\n\t      forward  trading and to correct the abuses  of
\n\t      certain’ forms of forward trading in the wider
\n\t      interests of the community and, in particular,
\n\t      the  interests  of  the  consumers  for\twhom
\n\t      adequate\tsafeguards were essential.   In\t our
\n\t      opinion,\tspeculative  contracts of  the\ttype
\n\t      covered  in  the\tpresent\t case  are  included
\n\t      within purview of the Act”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The result is that we think that he objects of contracts set
\nup by the plaintiff cannot be carried out by merely entering
\ninto  them outside Bombay or engaging third parties as\tsub-
\nagents,\t or,  in any other capacity, to execute\t them.\t The
\nprovisions  of the Control Order are  applicable  throughout
\nIndia and are not confined to forward contracts entered into
\nor meant to be carried out in any particular part of  India.
\nTheir  violation  is  a\t criminal  offence.   A\t claim\t for
\nindemnification,  under\t Sec.  222  Contract  Act<\/a>,  is\tonly
\nmaintainable if the acts, which the agent is employed to do,
\nare   lawful.\tAgreements  to\tcommit\tcriminal  acts\t are
\nexpressly  and specifically excluded, by Section 224<\/a> of\t the
\nContract  Act, from the scope of any right to an  indemnity.
\nThese  appeals\tare, therefore, liable to  be  dismissed  on
\nmerits,\t but,  inasmuch\t as  both  sides  to  the   unlawful
\nagreements  are in “pari delicto”, we set aside the  decrees
\nfor  costs  awarded to the defendants and  direct  that\t the
\nparties will bear their own costs throughout.  Subject\tto
\nthis  modification of decrees for costs we dismiss in  three
\nappeals before us.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t    Appeals dismissed.\n21<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Firm Of Pratapchand Nopaji vs Firm Of Kotrike Venkatta Setty & … on 12 December, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1223, 1975 SCR (3) 1 Author: M H Beg Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah PETITIONER: FIRM OF PRATAPCHAND NOPAJI Vs. RESPONDENT: FIRM OF KOTRIKE VENKATTA SETTY & SONS ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT12\/12\/1974 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-260477","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nFirm Of Pratapchand Nopaji vs Firm Of Kotrike Venkatta Setty & ... on 12 December, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Firm Of Pratapchand Nopaji vs Firm Of Kotrike Venkatta Setty & ... on 12 December, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1974-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-13T09:31:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"50 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Firm Of Pratapchand Nopaji vs Firm Of Kotrike Venkatta Setty & … on 12 December, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-13T09:31:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974\"},\"wordCount\":6034,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974\",\"name\":\"Firm Of Pratapchand Nopaji vs Firm Of Kotrike Venkatta Setty & ... on 12 December, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-13T09:31:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Firm Of Pratapchand Nopaji vs Firm Of Kotrike Venkatta Setty & … on 12 December, 1974\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Firm Of Pratapchand Nopaji vs Firm Of Kotrike Venkatta Setty & ... on 12 December, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Firm Of Pratapchand Nopaji vs Firm Of Kotrike Venkatta Setty & ... on 12 December, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-13T09:31:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"50 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Firm Of Pratapchand Nopaji vs Firm Of Kotrike Venkatta Setty & … on 12 December, 1974","datePublished":"1974-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-13T09:31:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974"},"wordCount":6034,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974","name":"Firm Of Pratapchand Nopaji vs Firm Of Kotrike Venkatta Setty & ... on 12 December, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-13T09:31:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-of-pratapchand-nopaji-vs-firm-of-kotrike-venkatta-setty-on-12-december-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Firm Of Pratapchand Nopaji vs Firm Of Kotrike Venkatta Setty & … on 12 December, 1974"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260477","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=260477"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260477\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260477"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260477"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260477"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}