Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.51 seconds)The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Ramdas Vithaldas Durbar vs Chhaganlal Pitamber And S. Ameerchand ... on 22 June, 1916
The Supreme Court referring to the definition of 'document of title' in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, observed that the inclusion of the railway receipts in the definition, indicates the legislative intention to accept the mercantile usage found by the Judicial Committee in 43 Ind App 164= AIR 1916 PC 7. Therefore, the appellant cannot derive any help from the decision of the Supreme Court except to the extent that if the way bill comes within the definition of the words 'documents of title', it could be treated like the railway receipt as in that case. In the absence of the way bill being included in the definition, the test applied by the Judicial Committee in respect of the railway receipts should be applied in the case of the way bill also. The appellant's contention is that in this case, there is proof that the way bill was being used in the ordinary course of business as proof of the possession or control of goods or purporting to authorise either by endorsement or by delivery the possessor of the documents to transfer or receive the goods thereby represented. Sri K. R. Karanth the learned counsel for the second respondent contends that no such usage has been established.
Section 2 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
The Morvi Mercantile Bank Ltd. And Anr vs Union Of India, Through The General ... on 3 March, 1965
In support of this contention, Sri Krishna Rao places strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in , Morvi Mercantile Bank v. Union of India. This decision proceeds on the basis that the railway receipt, which was the document concerned, is included within the definition of the term 'documents of title' under S. 2, sub-section (4) of the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930. If the documents of entrustment like the way bills in the instant case had been included within the above definition, then it would have followed that the owner of the goods can make a valid pledge of them by endorsing them as representing symbolic delivery of possession of the said goods. The difficulty in this case arises because we are concerned with a way bill issued by a public carrier and it is not specifically included in the definition of 'Document of Title' as a 'Railway Receipt' is. Therefore to consider whether the way bill is a document of title, we shall have to see the definition of the term 'document of title' under Section 2, sub-section (4) of the Sale of Goods Act. it is as follows:
Section 148 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 172 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
T.S. Natcheappa Chetty vs The Irrawaddy Flotilia Company, ... on 8 December, 1913
Sri. K. R. Karanth, the learned counsel for the second defendant further drawn our attention to the fact that this condition is a part of the contract between the first defendant on the one hand and the second defendant on the other. If no right for the delivery of the goods is created n favour of the plaintiff by virtue of the transfer of the way bills, the plaintiff cannot complain that the goods have not been delivered in accordance with condition No. 10. He also contends that Condition No. 10 does not create any obligation on the part of the second defendant to deliver the goods only to the person who surrenders the original way bill. This condition, it is submitted is not obligatory and does not create a right in favour of the consignor or his transferee that the carrier is under a legal obligation not to deliver the goods unless the original is surrendered. A similar question came up for consideration in the decision of the Privy Council reported in (1914) ILR 41 Cal 670 Natcheappa Chetty v. Irrawaddy Flotilla Co. A representation similar to condition No. 10 printed at the back of the way bill in this case was embodied in a circular. The relevant clause in the Circular reads:
1