https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168663 Emergency bye-laws under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 were treated as valid regulatory measures capable of authorising close-out of forward contracts, and the majority held that powers assigned by such bye-laws could fall within section 4(f) as part of the statutory scheme. The Court also held that the bye-law could operate on subsisting hedge and on-call contracts because it was framed to restore normal trading conditions in an emergency, and the challenge of retrospective operation therefore failed. The mala fides allegation was rejected for want of proof. The dissent took the view that retrospective bye-laws were not authorised and that section 4(f) was limited to supervisory or advisory functions. en-us Wed, 11 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:34:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168663 Emergency bye-laws under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 were treated as valid regulatory measures capable of authorising close-out of forward contracts, and the majority held that powers assigned by such bye-laws could fall within section 4(f) as part of the statutory scheme. The Court also held that the bye-law could operate on subsisting hedge and on-call contracts because it was framed to restore normal trading conditions in an emergency, and the challenge of retrospective operation therefore failed. The mala fides allegation was rejected for want of proof. The dissent took the view that retrospective bye-laws were not authorised and that section 4(f) was limited to supervisory or advisory functions. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168663