Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)Loon Karan Sohan Lal vs Firm John And Co. And Ors. on 12 March, 1965
In , Loon Karan Sohan Lal v. Firm John and Company and Ors., a Division Bench of our Court has held that in determining legal nature of relationship in between the alleged principal and agent the use or omission of the word agent is not conclusive. The Court must examine the true nature of the agreement and the subsequent dealings between the parties, and then decide whether it establishes a relationship of agency under the law.
Gordon Woodroffe & Co vs Sheikh M. A. Majid & Co on 22 March, 1966
In the aforesaid case, the Court has relied upon following observations made in , Gordon Woodroffe and Co. v. Sheikh M.A. Majid and Co.:
Tirumala Venkateswara Timber ... vs Commercial Tax Officer, Rajahmundry on 28 November, 1967
In A.I.R. 1968 SC 784, Sri Tirumala Venkateswars Timber and Bamboo Firm v. Commercial Tax Officer, Rajahmundry, distinction between a contract of the sale and contract of agency was pointed out with reference to Sales of Goods Act. The essence of contract of sale is the transfer of property to the goods for a price paid or promised to be paid. The transferee in such a case is liable to the transferor as a debtor for the price to be paid and not as an agent for the proceeds of the sale. The essence of agency to sell is the delivery of the goods to a person who is to sell them, not as his own property but as the property of the principal who continues to be the owner of the goods and will, therefore, be liable to account for the sale proceeds.
Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 February, 1969
In the case of Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 24 STC 487 Apex Court held "that the form in which the invoice was made out was not determinative of the contract between the company and its customers". The substance of transaction is to be considered.
Tvl, Ramco Cement Distribution Co. ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 October, 1992
10. Both the aforesaid decisions have been relied upon in the case of TVL Ramco Cement Distribution Co. Pvt. Ltd., Tamil Nadu v. State of Tamil Nadu .
The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
Section 182 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. vs State Of Kerala on 31 July, 1969
In the case of Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. State of Kerala 26 STC 248 (SC), company was engaged in the manufacturing of liquor at various places in U.P. and Haryana, transported the goods from its breweries and distilleries to its place of business in Ernakulam and sold them there. When selling liquor to the customers the appellant made out separate bills for ex-factory price and for "freight and handling charges". The appellant claimed that the amount charged for "freight and handling charges" incurred by it in transporting the goods from the breweries and distilleries to the warehouse in Kerala were eligible for deduction under Rule 9(f) of the Kerala General sales Tax Rules, 1963, a rule which is in the same terms as Rule 6, This claim was negatived by Apex Court The Court observed:
1