Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)Section 2 in Indian Companies Act, 1913 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in Indian Companies Act, 1913 [Entire Act]
Indian Companies Act, 1913
Section 8 in Indian Companies Act, 1913 [Entire Act]
The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 4 December, 1954
12. These observations merely indicate how delivery can be effected in a c.i.f. contract. Whether all the contracts were c.i.f. contracts and what kind of delivery was intended or given would depend on the evidence in regard to the transactions. The question may have also to be decided after taking evidence whether in the interpretation of Section 5 (v) in relation to a c.i.f. or f.o.b. contract actual delivery means actual delivery of the bill of lading. The distinction between constructive and actual delivery has been adverted to in the dissenting judgment of Venkatarama Aiyar, J., in Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar (1955) 2 M.L.J. S.C. 168, who observed at page 285 as follows :
A.M. Mohammed Ishok vs The State Of Madras, Represented By The ... on 2 March, 1955
The decision reported in Mohammad Ishok v. State of Madras (1955) 2 M.L.J. 319 was next relied on. That case was concerned with the interpretation of Article 286 of the Constitution under which a sale shall be deemed to have taken place in the State in which the goods were actually delivered as a result of such sale for purposes of consumption in that State notwithstanding the general law relating to the passing of property in the goods. There was a contract for the sale of oil which was to be filled in drums supplied by the foreign buyer. The goods were delivered to the carrier within the State of Madras with railway receipts in the name of the buyers as consignees. Though ultimately the goods were sent to Cochin State the passing of the property in the goods was complete within the State of Madras. The learned Judges held that actual delivery of the goods to the buyer was within the State of Madras and the consumption in the Cochin State cannot imply a second delivery there and that therefore the sales were liable to tax. In this case the goods were actually delivered within the State of Madras and we are not able to appreciate how it can advance the case of the respondent. It has been said that a c.i.f. contract is an agreement for the sale of goods to be performed by the delivery of documents and not a mere sale of documents.
Section 39 in Indian Companies Act, 1913 [Entire Act]
Article 286 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1