Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.49 seconds)The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
Section 14 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Andhra Sugars Ltd. & Anr. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 29 September, 1967
AIR 1968 SC 478 (Supra) and Andhra Sugar Ltd's case, AIR 1968 SC 599 (Supra) and Civil Appeal No. 1364 of 1966, D/-27-8-1968=(AIR 1959 SC 343) the legal tie (veniculum juris) which bound the parties to perform their obligations was contractual. A regulatory law merely adds the obligation to enter into such a tie between the parties indicated there. It may even specifiy the terms, such as price, on which the agreement will take place. Regulation is still found to be subsidiary in such cases when the character of the transactions is examined. The transactions may take place within the limits set by or even as a consequence of a regulatory order. They are however, sales in ultimate analysis. The case before us is governed by the ratio decidendi of the later type of cases. The dividing line between the two types of cases may appear to be very thin sometimes, but it is there.
State Of Rajasthan And Anr. vs Karam Chand Thappar And Brothers (Coal ... on 27 August, 1968
8. I may also refer to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan V. Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1364 of 1966, D/- 27-8-1968 = (AIR 1969 SC 343). The Court held that there was an agreement of sale between the parties and although the price chargeable for the goods was fixed under the Colliery Control Order, the effect of the Control Order was only to superimpose upon the agreement between the parties the rate fixed under the order, It was a case where the contract was merely modified by statutory provisions.
The Defence of India Act, 1962
Section 21 in Telangana Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
M/S New India Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Bihar on 26 November, 1962
The earlier decision in New India Sugar Mills case, AIR 1963 SC 1207 (supra) was distinguished in facts as "no room for mutual assent" was left in transactions under consideration in the earlier case.