Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (1.76 seconds)
Documents citing Jaffer Meher Ali vs Budge-Budge Jute Mills Co. on 8 May, 1906

Chandra Sreenivasa Rao vs Korrapati Raja Rama Mohana Rao And Anr. on 17 April, 1951

7. The case law on the subject indicates that the word "object" appears to be used in a very wide sense. The definition of that word is stated with clarity in 'Jaffar Meher Ali v. Budge Budge Jute Mills Co.', 33 Cal 702. The facts in that case are: One Kasim Karim assigned his interest under a contract to the plaintiff. The assignee sought to enforce his rights under the contract. The defendant company, the other party to the contract, contended 'inter alia' that the assignment was made with the object of defeating the creditors of the assignor, and therefore void against the defendant company, when it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff before the learned Judges that the words "consideration" and "object" used in Section 23 of the Contract Act did not mean two different things, but two different views of the same thing & that the object of the agreement was the same as the consideration, the learned Judges had no difficulty to reject the said contention. Sale, J. expressed his view on the meaning of the said term as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And ... vs Shri Dipak Dhar And Ors. on 14 August, 1984

No particulars of such or any appeal from that judgment was produced before us. It was Dr. Pal's further submissions that since the determinations in Joffer Meher Ali v. Budge-Budge Jute Mitts Co. (1906) ILR 33 Cal 702, the definition of "goods" has not been substantially amended and changed, so on the basis of such decision "lottery tickets" in this case should not be held, found and observed to be "goods" under the said Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sabava Yellappa vs Yamanappa Sabu on 30 November, 1932

702, confirmed by the Appeal Court in Jaffer Meher Ali v. Budge-Budge Jute Mills Co. (1906) I.L.R. 34 Cal. 289 If the object of a transfer of property is immoral, the transfer is void, and there cannot be any conveyance of any interest effected by the transfer. The object of the sale-deed in the present case was future cohabitation and might also be said to be a reward for past cohabitation. If the transfer is invalid, the person passing the document retains the title in himself, and would ordinarily be entitled to recover the property on the ground that the title has not passed from him.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Gulabchand Gambhirmal vs Kudilal Govindram And Anr. on 24 November, 1958

Section 23 of the Contract Act inter alia says that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless the court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. The word 'object' in Section 23 of the Contract Act has not been used in the same sense as 'consideration' which has been used to dis-tinguish it from 'consideration' and means 'purpose' or 'design' (see Jaffer Meher Ali v. Budge-Budge Jute Mills Co. ILR 33 Cal 702, which was upheld in appeal in Jaffer Meher Ali v. Budge-Budge Jute Mills Co. ILR 34 Cal 289 and Sabava Yellappa v. Yaman-appa Sabu AIR 1933 Bom 209).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Ibrahim Isaphai vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 9 April, 1964

He also relied upon the case of Jaffer Meher Ali v. Budge-Budge Jute Mills Co., reported in ILR 33 Cal 702. In that case, it was held that "the right to claim the benefit of a contract for the purchase of goods is it "beneficial interest in moveable property" within the definition of "actionable claim" in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), and, as such, assignable." In our judgment, both these cases are cases in which, under the law governing the sale of goods, beneficial interest in the goods was created. None of these cases can be used as an authority for the pro-position that a beneficial interest in goods comes to be created by endorsement and delivery of a railway receipt proprio vigore. Just as the owner of the goods can, by expressing an intention, transfer title in goods, similarly, the some owner, by entering into an agreement of sale of goods and by retaining possession of those goods, can transfer a beneficial interest therein. If the latter transaction takes place, then an actionable claim can come into existence but not otherwise. Under the circumstances, the right created in favour of the consignor m the consignee or in favour of any of the endorsees vis a vis the final endorsee would not become an actionable claim by virtue of a simple endorsement and delivery of the railway receipt, but that it would be so only if, by virtue of the transaction in which the endorsement and the delivery of the railway receipt take place, a right to an actionable claim arises and the same is assigned in favour of the final endorsee. In the absence of the creation of an actionable claim, the rights created under the contract of bailment would be rights in personam, rights which arise out of the contract of bailment, pure and simple, and the law which would govern the rights of the parties to the contract would be the same which govern the rights of the parties to an ordinary contract. It is well known that, ordinarily, only a privy to a contract has a right to sue for breach of a contract. It is true that the benefits of a contract are assignable. But, it is well known that the person to whom the benefits are assigned does not get a right to sue the other contracting party for breach of the contract itself unless the case comes within one of the recognized exceptions.
Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Champarun Sugar Co. Ltd. And Anr. vs Haridas Mundhra And Ors. on 5 May, 1965

Reference may be made to a decision of Sale J., of this Court Jaffar Moher Ali v. Budge Budge Jute Mills Co. Ltd., ILR 33 Cal 702. The facts In that case were as follows: On the 20th July, 1905, the defendant company entered into a contract with one Cassim Karim for the sale to him of certain gunny-bags to be delivered in monthly instalments in the months of January to June 1906. The contract contained certain buyer's options as to quality and packing of which the latter was declarable not later than the first day of the month previous to that in which delivery was due. There was no specfic clause in the contract making it assignable. By an indenture of assignment dated the 16th August 1905 Cassim Karim, in consideration of a sum of Rs. 100, assigned to the plaintiff the said contract and all the benefits and advantages thereunder. On the 19th August, 1905, notice of the assignment was given to the defendant company who refused to accept the notice or to recognise the assignee. The assignee thereupon declared his option with repaid to the instalment due in January 1906 and sent shipping instructions which were ignored. He then sued for Rs. 3,000 us damages for non-delivery of the January instalment. The main contention of the defendant company was that the contract was not assignable. Sale, J., said as follows:
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next