Mirabita V Imperial - Judgment Search Results
Seth Pushalal Mansinghka (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Del ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: May-05-1967
Reported in: AIR1967SC1626; [1967]3SCR961
such acceptance or payment or tender, the property in the goods does not pass to the purchaser : Mirabita v. Imperial Ottoman Bank. If the seller discounts a draft upon the buyer with a bank, and authorises the bank
Mahabir Commercial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Benga ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Sep-08-1972
Reported in: AIR1973SC430; [1972]86ITR417(SC); (1972)2SCC704; [1973]2SCR134
or his agent or representative : see the judgments of Bramwell L. J. and Cotton L. J. in Mirabita v. Imperial Ottoman Bank 1878-3 Ex.D.164). It passes unconditionally where the bill of lading is made out in favour of
Seth Pushalal Mansinghka (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Del ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: May-05-1967
Reported in: [1967]66ITR159(SC)
such acceptance or payment or tender, the property in the goods does not pass to the purchaser : Mirabita v. Imperial Ottoman Bank. If the seller discounts a draft upon the buyer with a bank, and authorises the bank
18-section briefs on any result in this list
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. P.M. Rathod and Co.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: May-20-1959
Reported in: AIR1959SC1394; 26(1960)CLT384(SC); [1959]37ITR145(SC); [1960]1SCR401; [1959]10STC493(SC)
conditional and until the price is paid the property in the goods does not pass to the purchaser. Mirabita v. Imperial Ottoman Bank at pages 172-173 (Cotton L. J.). See also The Parchim at pages 170-171 (Per Lord Parker).
R. Venkata Subbu and ors. Vs. the Director of Enforcement and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ281
contracts are c.i.f. contracts or f.o.b. contracts; the incidents of these contracts were explained by Cotton, L.J., in Mirabita v. Imperial Ottoman Bank (1878) 3 Ex. D. 164. The learned Advocate-General has been at some pains to gather the
Majety Balakrishna Rao Vs. Mooke Devassy Ouseph and Sons
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1959AP30
was prima facie evidence that he intended to reserve the right of disposal.He referred to the decision in Mirabita v. Imperial Ottoman Bank, (1878) 3 Ex. D 164 at p. 172 (C). The second rule extracted by the learned … 172 (C). The second rule extracted by the learned Judge from the judgment of Cotton L. J. in Mirabita v. Imperial Ottoman bank (C) (supra) is as follows :'If, however, the vendor, when shipping the articles which he intends
The State of Madras Vs. Ramalingam and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1956
Reported in: [1957]8STC77(Mad)
The learned author sums up the eight principles established by authorities. The leading decisions referred to are : Mirabita v. Imperial Ottoman Bank (1878) 47 L.J. Ex. 418, Wait v. Baker (1848) 17 L.J. Ex. 307, Gabarron v. Kreeft
East Asiatic Company (India) Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1954
Reported in: [1956]7STC299(Mad)
than a lien of the unpaid seller ?12. The following three extracts will make the point clear. In Mirabita v. Imperial Ottoman Bank (1878) 3 Ex. D 164, Lord Justice Cotton observed:-Under a contract for sale of chattels not … subject to the seller's lien or conditionally on performance by the buyer of his part of the contract: Mirabita v. Imperial Ottoman Bank (1878) 3 Ex. D. 164, Van Castle v. Broker (1848) 2 Ex. 691, Browne v. Hare
The Ford Automobiles India Ltd. Vs. the Delhi Motor and Engineering Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom125; (1922)24BOMLR1140
there are some well-established rules, especially those laid down in Wait v. Baker (1848) 2 Ex. 1 and Mirabita v. Imperial Ottoman Bank (1878) 3 Ex. D. 164 which are constantly referred to by the Courts of England as
Mahomed Ibrahim Mahomed Jaffir Sahib and Co. Vs. Nalam Lakshmikantam a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1918
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.125
purchaser's initials at Covelong was undoubtedly an appropriation of the goods, it was a conditional appropriation only. [See Mirabita v. Imperial Ottoman Bank (1878) 3 Ex. D. 164. Gabarrow v. Kreeft (1876) 10 Ex. 274. and Moakes v. Nicolson
Hover bars for counts · use +/− or drag to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free