<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1975 (3) TMI 141 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192684</link>
    <description>Recognition under Section 6 and registration under Section 14A of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act operated in separate fields: recognition did not itself authorise forward trading, and registration was a distinct prerequisite for carrying on such business. The Court held that Section 14A allowed registration subject to certificate conditions, including conditions regulating the commodities in which trading could be undertaken. Rule 7A, read with Section 4(f), Section 26 and Form F, was therefore intra vires, and the Commission could validly impose condition No. (ii). Sections 15 to 18 were treated as Central Government prohibitions and restrictions that did not limit the Commission&#039;s power to attach registration conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2017 17:19:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=472040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (3) TMI 141 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192684</link>
      <description>Recognition under Section 6 and registration under Section 14A of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act operated in separate fields: recognition did not itself authorise forward trading, and registration was a distinct prerequisite for carrying on such business. The Court held that Section 14A allowed registration subject to certificate conditions, including conditions regulating the commodities in which trading could be undertaken. Rule 7A, read with Section 4(f), Section 26 and Form F, was therefore intra vires, and the Commission could validly impose condition No. (ii). Sections 15 to 18 were treated as Central Government prohibitions and restrictions that did not limit the Commission&#039;s power to attach registration conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>