DUNI CHAND RATARIA versus BHUWALKA BROTHERS LTD.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1071 · Decided: 03-12-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
. ' 
:s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1071 
to establish a proper system of 
conservancy, 
sanita-
tion and watch and ward at the fair, (3) that 
when 
issuing a permit the 
District 
Magistrate 
can impose 
such terms and conditions as he may 
deem fit. 
The 
net effect of these rules is merely to establish a system 
·of ad hoc control by the District Magistrate through 
the issue of a permit and by the vesting of other powers 
in him under the rules. 
These 
cannot 
be said to be 
rules which in themselves constitute a system of con-
.servancy, 
sanitation and watch and ward. 
Thus 
the 
result that is brought about is not within the intend-
ment of the section which authorises the making of 
the rules. A system of ad hoc control of responsible 
·officers may, possibly be one method 
of regulating 
the sanitary and 
other 
arrangements 
at 
such large 
.gatherings. 
But if it 
is intended to 
constitute 
a 
system of ad hoc control 
with 
reasonable safeguards, 
the power to make rules in that behalf must be granted 
to the rule-making authority by the legislative organ 
in appropriate language. 
The impugned order of the District Magistrate 
be-
ing bad on both the above grounds, this is enough to 
dispose of the appeal and it is not necessary to ex-
press any opinion as to whether the impugned order 
infringes 
also 
the 
appellant's 
fundamental 
rights 
under article 19. 
The appeal must accordingly be 
:allowed. 
Appeal allowed. 
DUNI CHAND RAT ARIA 
v. 
BHUW ALKA BROTHERS LTD. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., BHAGWATI, JAGAN-
NADHADAS and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] 
West Bengal Jute Goods Future Ordinance, 1949, s. 2(1) ( b) (i) 
-Actual delivery of possession-Whether includes symbolical as well 
as constructive delivery of pos.<ession-lndian Sale of Goods Act, 1930 
(111 of 1930), s. 2(2)-Delivery-Meaning of. 
Delivery has been defined in s. 2(2) of Indian Sale of Goods 
Act, 1930, as meaning voluntary transfer of possession from one per-
1954 
Captain G{lflpati 
Singhji 
v. 
The State of Ajmer 
and Another 
Jagannadhwfas J. 
1954 
December 3 
1954 
Duni Chand 
Rat aria 
v. 
Bhuwalka 
Brothers Ltd. 
1072 
_SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
son to another and it includes not only actual delivery but also, 
symbolical or constructive delivery within the meaning of the term. 
The expression "actual delivery of possession" in s. 2( I) (b) (i} 
of the West Bengal Jute Goods Future Ordinance, 1949 means actual-
delivery as contrasted with inere dealings in differences within the· 
intendment of the Ordinance and such actual delivery of possession 
included within its scope symbolical as well as constructive delivery 
of possession. 
'fhe word "involving" in the expression "involving the actuaL 
delivery of possession thereof" in s. 2(1) (b)(i) of the 
Ordinance· 
means in the context resulting in and this condition would be satis-
fied if the chain contracts in the present case, as entered into in the-
market resulted in actual delivery of possession of goods in the uJti. 
mate analysis. 
The Ordinance came within Head 27 ot List 2 of the Seventh 
Schedule of the Governµient of India Act, 1935:-"Trade aqd com· 
merce within the Province; inarkets and fair; money lending 
and· 
money lenders" and the 
Provincial Legislature was competent to-
legislate on that topic. 
Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. Ramjiban ([1938] L.R. 65 I.A. 263). 
referred to. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION : Civil 
Appeal No. 
61 of 1953. 
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 
16th day of May, 1952 of the 
High 
Court of 
Judi-
cature at Calcutta in Appeal from 
Original 
Decree 
No. 124 of 1951 arising out of the decree dated 
the 
25th day of May, 1951 of the High 
Court of Calcutta· 
in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in Suit 
No .. 
3614 of 1950. 
M. 
C. 
Setalvad, 
Attorney-General for India, (P. 
Manda/ and S. P. Varma, with him), for the appellant. 
N. C. Chatterjee 
(A. N. Sinha and 
P. C. Dutta,. 
with him), for the respondent. 
1954. 
December 3. The Judgment of 
the 
Court 
was delivered by 
BHAGWATI J.-This 
appeal 
with 
certificate 
from 
the High Court of Judicature at 
Calcutta arises 
out 
of the suit filed on the original side 
of the High Court 
by the appellant against the respondent to recover a 
sum of Rs. 1,25,962-2-0 with interest and costs. 
-· 
'->--
' 
I 
, ,-
• 
-
-
\ 
\ 
.:' -
J 
I • 
I 
• 
S.C,R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1073 
The appellant entered 
into 
three 
contracts, two 
dated the 8th August 1949 and the 
thir

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.