Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.74 seconds)The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 182 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi vs Air France on 13 April, 2009
19. This Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi Vs.
Singapore Airlines Ltd. [2009-ITOL-183-HC-DEL-IT] analyses the
aforesaid definition in the following manner:
P. Krishna Bhatta And Ors. vs Mundila Ganapathi Bhatta (Died) And ... on 15 July, 1954
(ii) The person who purports to enter into a transaction on behalf of
the principal would have the power to create, modify or terminate
contractual relationship between his principal, that is, the person
whom he represents, and the third parties. - P. Krishna Bhatta v.
Mundila Ganapathi Bhatta AIR 1955 Mad. 648 at page 651, para
Lakshminarayan Ram Gopaland Son Ltd vs The Government Of Hyderabad on 1 April, 1954
(iii) An agent, though bound by instructions given to him by the
principal does not work under the direct control and supervision of
the principal. The agent thus uses his own discretion to act on
behalf of the principal subject to the limits to his authority
prescribed by the principal - Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal & Son
Ltd. v. Government of Hyderabad : [1954]25ITR449(SC) .
Qamar Shaffi Tyabji vs The Commissioner, Excess Profits ... on 18 April, 1960
This
cited with the approval in Qamar Shaffi Tyabji v. Commissioner of
Excess Profits Tax : [1960]39ITR611(SC) .
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 March, 2006
24. In contrast, the legal position when the goods are sold by principal to its
distributors creating „principal and principal‟ relationship would be
entirely different. On the sale of goods, the ownership passes between
the manufacturer and the distributors. It is the responsibility of the
distributor thereafter to sell those goods further to the consumers - the
ultimate users. The principal/manufacturer does not come in picture at
all. Of course, he may be liable for some action by the consumer because
of defective goods, etc., which is the result of other enactments
conferring certain rights on the consumer or common law rights in his
favour as against the manufacturer. We may also point out that in its
classic judgment in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Another
Vs. Union of India and Others [AIR 2006 SC 1383], the Supreme
Court held that electromagnetic waves or radio of frequencies are not
goods and with the sale thereof Sales Tax Act is not attracted, though
the decision was rendered in the context of liability of sales tax.