Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-03-1930
Reported in : AIR1930Bom529; (1930)32BOMLR1065
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs are appealing against the judgment of the learned First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad on the ground that he has wrongly decided in the negative the point of law involved in issue No. 1, namely, whether the agreement between the parties that the property in the suit goods should not pass until the whole of the purchase-price had been paid, was valid and effective having regard to Sections 83 and 77 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872. There were several other issues raised in the case all of which were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. And there are cross-objections before us in respect of them. But we have taken first this point of law because it is the decisive issue in the suit in certain events.2. The contract which was made in India is contained in three letters of February 1, 9 and 9, 1923. By the first letter, Exhibit 42, the plaintiffs were to supply an engine and a boiler therein specified for in all 3,480 packed and delivere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-03-1930
Reported in : 128Ind.Cas.26
Amberson Marten, C.J.1. The plaintiffs are appealing against the judgment of the learned First Glass Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad on the ground that he has wrongly decided in the negative the point of law involved in issue No. 1, namely, whether the agreement between the parties that the property in the suit goods should not pass until the whole of the purchase price had been paid, was valid and effective having regard to Sections 83 and 77 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872. There were several other issues raised in the case all of which were decided in favour of the plaintiffs And there are cross-objections before us in respect of them. But we have taken first this point of law because it is the decisive issue in the suit in certain events.2. The contract which was made in India is contained in three letters of February 1, 9 and 9, 1923. By the first letter, Ex. 42, the plaintiffs were to supply an engine and a boiler therein specified for in all 3,480 packed and delivered for ship...
Tag this Judgment!