https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173393 Written consent or written confirmation was treated as a condition for a valid forward contract under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952. A member of a recognised association could not enforce a contract with a non-member on his own account when the statutory requirement of consent, authority, and disclosure was not satisfied; the penal nature of the provision did not soften that prohibition. Additional evidence was also refused because the document was already in the appellants' possession, had not been produced earlier, and no sufficient ground was shown for its admission at the appellate stage. The contract was therefore invalid and unenforceable. en-us Wed, 20 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:08:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173393 Written consent or written confirmation was treated as a condition for a valid forward contract under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952. A member of a recognised association could not enforce a contract with a non-member on his own account when the statutory requirement of consent, authority, and disclosure was not satisfied; the penal nature of the provision did not soften that prohibition. Additional evidence was also refused because the document was already in the appellants' possession, had not been produced earlier, and no sufficient ground was shown for its admission at the appellate stage. The contract was therefore invalid and unenforceable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173393