https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193675 A bank's pleadings were held to be properly signed and the suit validly instituted by an authorised officer under the bank's regulations. The defendants were found to have contracted on their own account, not merely as agents for exporting concerns. On the substantive contract issue, a government ban on export of rayon filament was treated as a supervening illegality under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, so the forward contracts stood discharged by frustration and cancellation charges or interest could not be claimed under provisions meant for cancelled contracts. The cause of action arose on the ban date, and the suit filed more than three years later was time-barred. en-us Thu, 30 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:02:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193675 A bank's pleadings were held to be properly signed and the suit validly instituted by an authorised officer under the bank's regulations. The defendants were found to have contracted on their own account, not merely as agents for exporting concerns. On the substantive contract issue, a government ban on export of rayon filament was treated as a supervening illegality under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, so the forward contracts stood discharged by frustration and cancellation charges or interest could not be claimed under provisions meant for cancelled contracts. The cause of action arose on the ban date, and the suit filed more than three years later was time-barred. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 30 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193675