TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the contracts for badla and forward transactions were void merely as wagering contracts or were illegal because their object was forbidden by law and opposed to public policy; and (ii) whether a claim for indemnity could be maintained under the Indian Contract Act when the acts for which indemnity was sought were connected with unlawful and prohibited contracts.
Issue (i): Whether the contracts for badla and forward transactions were void merely as wagering contracts or were illegal because their object was forbidden by law and opposed to public policy.
Analysis: The contracts were not found to be wagering contracts as between the plaintiff and the defendants, because the requisite mutuality of gain and loss on the uncertain event was absent. But the Court held that the transactions were forward contracts intended for speculation in oilseeds and were prohibited by the Bombay Forward Contracts Control Act, the Oilseeds (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order, 1943, and the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. The Court also held that the exemption notifications were not satisfied, since the contracts were not shown to be genuine contracts for actual delivery. The object of the agreements was therefore unlawful, and the illegality attached to the contracts themselves.
Conclusion: The contracts were illegal and forbidden by law, not merely void as wagers, and the plea of collateral enforceability failed.
Issue (ii): Whether a claim for indemnity could be maintained under the Indian Contract Act when the acts for which indemnity was sought were connected with unlawful and prohibited contracts.
Analysis: The indemnity claim was based on payments made in performance of transactions that were held to be prohibited. A right to indemnity under the Indian Contract Act arises only where the acts authorised are lawful, and agreements to commit or facilitate criminally prohibited acts are excluded from indemnity. Since the underlying transactions were unlawful, the plaintiff could not recover indemnity for payments made under them. The parties being in pari delicto, costs were directed to lie where they fell.
Conclusion: The indemnity claim was not maintainable, and the appeals failed on merits.
Final Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, with only the costs order modified so that each side bore its own costs.
Ratio Decidendi: An agreement whose object is prohibited by law cannot be enforced, and no indemnity lies for acts done in furtherance of such unlawful transactions.
TaxTMI 
