https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169502 The SC held that the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 was within legislative competence because it was, in pith and substance, a law regulating forward contracts and futures markets, and it was not invalid on the constitutional grounds raised. It further held that where a contract is alleged to be illegal and void, the validity of that contract and its arbitration clause is for the Court, not the arbitrators. Mere participation in arbitration did not amount to a fresh arbitration agreement conferring jurisdiction. The contracts were treated as non-transferable specific delivery contracts exempt from the notification dated 29 October 1953, so the awards and orders setting them aside could not stand. en-us Fri, 04 May 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:01:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169502 The SC held that the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 was within legislative competence because it was, in pith and substance, a law regulating forward contracts and futures markets, and it was not invalid on the constitutional grounds raised. It further held that where a contract is alleged to be illegal and void, the validity of that contract and its arbitration clause is for the Court, not the arbitrators. Mere participation in arbitration did not amount to a fresh arbitration agreement conferring jurisdiction. The contracts were treated as non-transferable specific delivery contracts exempt from the notification dated 29 October 1953, so the awards and orders setting them aside could not stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 May 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169502