Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Marwar Tent Factory vs Union Of India And Ors on 9 November, 1989

Dina Nath Malhotra And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 January, 2003

In Mohan Meakin Breweries Limited, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad (U. P.) v. Union of India (supra), it was held that the demand of Rs. 2,57,337 was just a claim by the Government against the petitioner therein on the allegation that a breach of contract was committed. Petitioner-company denied its liability. It was held that the validity of such a disputed claim for money based on an alleged breach of contract, is to be canvassed either for or against, in ordinary civil suit or by resorting to arbitration, if applicable. Accordingly, the respondents were restrained from adjusting or recovering the amount of Rs. 2,57,337/- out of the security amount and other pending bills of the petitioner -company.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 7 - M Sarin - Full Document

M/S C.R.Virmani & Co. & Ors. vs M/S Shaw Wallace & Co. on 16 August, 2023

148 Bhagwanda Goverdhandas Kedia vs. Girdharilal Parshottamdas and co. AIR 1966 SC 543 T. Linga Gowder vs. State of Madras AIR 1971 Mad 28 Mukundi Lal vs. Nur Elahi Badul Ali, AIR 1934 Lahore 44 Girija Poshad Pal vs. National Coal Co. Ltd. AIR 1949 Cal 472 G. Venkatesha Bhatt vs. Kamlapat Motilal, AIR 1957 Mad 201 Marwar Tent Factory vs. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 71 AIR 1990 SC 1753 Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 661 Sri Ramkrishna Commiercial Society Ltd. vs. State of Andhra, AIR 1961 AP 86 J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India, 1987 Supp SCC 350 State of Travancore-Cochin vs. Shanmugha Vilas Cashewnut Factory, AIR 1953 SC 333 Prakash H. Jain, vs. Marie Fernandes, (2003) 8 SCC 431 State of W.B. vs. Sadan K. Bormal, (2004) 6 SCC 59 Raj Kumar Khurana vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 6 SCC 72 A.B.D. Laminart (P) Ltd. vs. A.P. Agencies (1989) 2 SCC 163
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S Abhyankar - Full Document

Shalimar Chemical Works Limited vs The Agricultural Market Committee on 18 April, 1996

27. The weighment was done only for the satisfaction of the buyer and it was not a condition of the contract as could be seen from the invoice and the Form-X appended thereto. Where specific goods are sold in a deliverable condition, even if the entire price money is not paid, the contract is effective Under Section 20 of the Sale of Goods Act. One significant aspect to be noticed in this case is that after the stocks were loaded into the trucks, the seller in Kerala had absolutely no liability with regard to any future losses. That is the reason why the goods were insured and the insurance premia were paid by the appellant. Where goods have been delivered to a common carrier to be sent to the person, by whom they have been ordered, the carrier becomes the agent of the vendee and such a delivery amounts to delivery to the vendee Under Section 23(2) of the Sale of Goods Act. Marwar Tent Factory v. Union of India: . There was thus completed sale in Kerala State and no purchase in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - V R Reddy - Full Document

Parmali Wallace Limited vs Union Of India on 29 May, 1998

"13. "As some doubt was raised in the Delhi High Court as to the exact scope of the ratio of the Union of India Vs. Raman Iron Foundry, , the matter was referred to a full Bench apparently to reconsider the earlier Division Bench judg-ments in Marwar Tent Factory Vs. Union of India, and M/s. Air Foam Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, . The full Bench in Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd.Vs. Union of India, took the view that though an injunction could be granted in those matters restraining the Union of India from adjusting or recovering any damages claimed by it from other pending bills of the contractor no order of injunction restraining the Union of India from withholding the payments due to the contractor under other pending bills could be issued."
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S N Kapoor - Full Document

Siel Ltd., Modi Sugar Industries And Rb ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 September, 2004

19. The circular dated 17.11.1972 was referred to, to contend that it was provided in the circulars the mode and manner of delivery of the sugar bags as also the fact that it was the statutory responsibility of the sugar mills to provide suitable donnage at their cost at the time of loading. Thus, if there was any wet sugar, the petitioners were responsible. The Supreme Court judgment in M/s Marwar Tent Factory case (supra) was sought to be distinguished on the ground that the property in goods could pass only if the goods were loaded. If the goods were not loaded, there could be no question of passing of the property. Even though the goods were sent against RRs, it was submitted that under the arrangement between the petitioner and the FCI, sample checking used to be done at the stage of unloading to verify whether the full goods had been supplied or not.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 6 - S K Kaul - Full Document

M/S. Bakshi Steels Ltd vs The City Of Nagpur on 3 November, 2009

[a] M/s. Marwar Tent Factory Vs. Union of India & ors. [AIR 1990 SC 1753], [b] Agricultural Market Committee Vs. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. [AIR 1997 SC 2502], [c] Birendra Nath Guha & Co., Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1955 Patna 245SC 1753], [d] Commissioner of Sales Tax, Eastern Division, Nagpur Vs. Husenali Adamji & Co. [AIR 1959 SC 887], [e] The Union of India Vs. Bhusawal Municipal Council [AIR 1982 Bombay 512], and [f] Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad & another [AIR 2005 SC 760].
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - A H Joshi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next