Judgment :- The defendant Arjun General Traders is the appellant against which a decree has been passed for a total sum of Rs. 17,925/- which the plaintiff claimed as damages for breach of contract. 2. The case of the plaintiff Kanthi Oil Mills is that the plaintiff placed an order with the defendant for sale of 300 bags of groundnut oil cake at Rs. 38.25 per bag of 80 Kgs. to the plaintiff under confirmation note No. 2006 dated 1.4.1972 through the brokers Raja Ramanlal & Co., Madras. The delivery was to be made through wagons indented in April, 1972. The plaintiff placed another order with the defendant through the same brokers under confirmation Note No. 2120 dated 12.4.1972 for sale of 600 bags o f Expeller groundnut oil cake at Rs. 39.50 per bag of 70 kgs. which includes C.S.T., ‘C’ form condition F.O.R., Madras, to be delivered through wagons indented in May first week. The brokers Raja Ramanlal & Co. supplied to the defendant 900 gunnies for the said delivery. Since the plaintiff did not hear anything from the defendant the brokers Raja Ramanlal & Co. wrote a letter to the defendant on 28.8.1972 calling upon it to supply the goods under the aforesaid two contracts. But to that the defendant replied making false statement that since the plaintiff had not supplied empty gunnies the contracts were cancelled. Thus the defendant committed breach of contract. The plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for this reach of contract. The defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the difference between the contract rate and the market rate from the date of breach viz., 21.9.1972. The defendant is also bound to pay a sum of Rs. 3,600/- being the cost of 900 gunny bags at the rate of Rs. 4/- per gunny bag. On these pleadings the plaintiff claimed a total sum of Rs. 17,925/-. 3. In the written statement the defendant denied that the plaintiff supplied 900 gunny bags as alleged by it and then it contended that the plaintiff ought to have supplied gunny bags for supply of groundnut oil cake but it failed to supply gunny bags and therefore it is the plaintiff who has committed breach of contract and hence the defendant is not liable to pay any amount to them. The defendant filed an additional written statement wherein it has raised a plea that the suit is barred by limitation, and that the suit is barred under S. 17 of the Forward Contract (Regulation) Act, 1952. 4. The trial court on consideration of the evidence adduced held that the plaintiffs have supplied 900 gunny bags to the defendants and the defendants committed breach of contract and therefore the defendant is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff. The trial court further held that the suit is not barred by limitation, and it also held that the suit is not barred under S. 17 of the Forward Contract (Regulation) Act 1952 as contended by the defendants. On these findings the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. As against this Judgment the defendant has come up in appeal. 5. Mr. V. Sambasivam, learned counsel for the appellant defendant contends that the trial Court has not properly understood the provisions of S. 17 of Forward Contract (Regulation) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act and Ex. B2 notification issued by the Government under that Section, and it was erroneously held that the suit is not barred under said Section. It is further contended that the trial court has also erred in holding that the plaintiff has supplied 900 gunny bags when there is absolutely no reliable evidence. 6. As regards the first point raised by the learned counsel, on careful consideration I find that there is merit. S. 17 of the Forward Contract (Regulation) Act 1952 prohibits forward contracts in certain cases. S. 17 reads as follows:— “17. Power to prohibit forward contracts in certain cases. (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that no person shall, save with the permission of the Central Government, enter into any forward contract for the sate or purchase of any goods or class of goods specified in the notification and to which the provisions of S. 15 have not been made applicable, except to the extent and in the manner, if any, as may be specified in the notification. (2) All forward contracts in contravention of the provisions of sub-S. (1) entered into after the date of publication of the notification thereunder shall be illegal. (2) All forward contracts in contravention of the provisions of sub-S. (1) entered into after the date of publication of the notification thereunder shall be illegal. (3) Whore a notification has been issued under sub-S. (1), the provisions of S. 16 shall, in the absence of anything to the contrary in the notification, apply to all forward contracts for the sale or purchase of any goods specified in the notification entered into before the date of the notification and remaining to be performed after the said date as they apply to all forward contracts for the sale or purchase of any goods specified in the notification under S. 15.” Now, the Government has issued a Notification which has been marked as Ex. B2 which is issued under the said Act. In this notification the Central Government has prohibited entering into a forward contract in respect of the goods mentioned in the schedule thereunder. Item 5 in the schedule is groundnut oil cake. Now, clause (3) of S. 2 of the Act defines a ‘forward contract’ as “forward contract means a contract for the delivery of goods at a future date and which is not a ready delivery contract”. what is ready delivery contract has been defined in clause (1) of S. 2 as ready delivery contract means a contract which provides for delivery of goods on the payment of price therefor either immediately or within such period not exceeding 11 days after the date of the contract and subject to such conditions as the Government may, by notification in the official gazette, specify in respect of any goods, the period in such contract not being capable of extension by mutual consent of the parties thereto or otherwise.” Exs. A1 dated 1.4.1972 and A2 dated 12.4.1972 are sale confirmation notes. As regards time of delivery it is mentioned in Ex. A1 as April indent to Bedeshwar” and in Ex. A2 as “May first week indent to Bedeshwar”. Now, to take up Ex. A2 confirmation letter first, this is dated 12.4.1972 and that is the date of contract. As per this Ex. A2 the time of delivery has been mentioned as May first week indent to Bedeshwar”. This means on 12.4.1972 the contract was entered into as per which the delivery of the goods has to be made in the first week of May. As per this Ex. A2 the time of delivery has been mentioned as May first week indent to Bedeshwar”. This means on 12.4.1972 the contract was entered into as per which the delivery of the goods has to be made in the first week of May. This clearly means a contract for delivery of the goods at a future date. Hence as per the definition given in S. 2(c) it is a forward contract. Now to take up Ex. A1 contract this is dated 1.4.1972 and the date of delivery of the goods has been mentioned in it as “April indent” This means that the goods can be delivered at any time in April. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the delivery of the goods on payment of the price therefor shall be made either immediately or within 11 days after the date of contract i.e., 1.4.1972, or any notification in this regard has been issued by the Government. Hence this contract must be held to be only a forward contract. It would appear so when we consider it along with the case of Ex. A2 which we have definitely found above that it was only a forward contract. Therefore there is no gain saying that the contract Exs. A1 and A2 are forward contracts. As the Government has issued Ex. B2 notification prohibiting entering into a forward contract in respect of groundnut oil cake, Exs. A1 and A2 the contracts having been entered into in violation of the said notification they are void contracts. Under such void contracts the plaintiff will not be entitled to any damage. It is quite understandable when the trial court says referring to Ex. B2 notification that fixation of the price alone appears to have been prohibited by this notification. When the contract itself is void no amount of correspondence by the parties would make it valid. Therefore the trial courts observation that if the contract is void the defendant need not have entered into a long correspondence with the plaintiff is not relevant. Thus the trial court is in error in rejecting this contention raised by the defendant. Therefore the claim for compensation cannot be sustained. 7. As regards the alleged supply of 900 empty gunny bags by the plaintiff to the defendant the only evidence according to the trial court is an entry in Ex. Thus the trial court is in error in rejecting this contention raised by the defendant. Therefore the claim for compensation cannot be sustained. 7. As regards the alleged supply of 900 empty gunny bags by the plaintiff to the defendant the only evidence according to the trial court is an entry in Ex. A8 book of the plaintiffs agent Raja Ramanlal & Co. In this there is an entry merely mentioning 900 empty gunny bags. This certainly does not show that the said gunny bags were delivered to the defendant. According to the plaintiff Ex. A7 letter dated 25.9.1972 from the defendant to their broker Raja Ramanlal & Co. indicates that there was supply of gunny bags. But as pointed out by the trial Court itself this communication itself shows that the gunny bags were given in connection with some other contracts. Strangely the trial Court, putting the burden on the defendant, states that the defendant has not let in any evidence to show that they have not received any gunny bags. Thus there is no reliable evidence to prove that 900 gunny bags were given by the plaintiff to the defendant as alleged by them. Therefore the plaintiffs claim for alleged supply of gunny bags also will fail. 8. The result is, the appeal is allowed and the Judgment of the trial Court decreeing the suit is set aside and the suit is dismissed. The respondent-plaintiff shall pay costs to the appellant-defendant in the appeal.