TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the cotton contracts were void for not being in accordance with the by-laws of the Association within the meaning of section 8(1) of the Bombay Cotton Contracts Act, 1932, on account of omission to state measurement and omission to fill in the difference above or below the settlement rate of the hedge contract.
Analysis: The statutory test was whether the contracts were in accordance with the by-laws, not whether every literal detail of the printed form had been reproduced. The form prescribed by the by-laws was not to be treated as a rigid stereotype, and substantial compliance was sufficient if the omitted term was not essential to the legal effect of the contract. The by-law relating to measurement had been suspended, and the omission of that term did not affect the substance of the bargain. As to the clause relating to settlement-rate differences, the surrounding by-laws and trade practice showed that where no specific difference was agreed upon, the contract could still operate without filling in the blank, especially since periodical settlements under those clauses had become obsolete in practice.
Conclusion: The contracts were not void under section 8(1) of the Bombay Cotton Contracts Act, 1932, and the appellants were not entitled to recover the sums claimed.
Ratio Decidendi: A contract is not void for want of compliance with prescribed by-laws if there is substantial compliance and the omitted terms are not essential to the legal effect of the contract, particularly where the relevant by-law has been suspended or rendered obsolete in practice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
