LAXMI DYECHEM V. STATE OF GUJARAT Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 CompLJ 137 (SC) ISSUE: Whether or not the dishonour of a cheque would constitute an offence only in one of the two contingencies envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? RULE: Section 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments...
Whether contracts entered into and executed by the assessee for manufacture, supply, installation, and commission of elevators and lifts were contracts for work or sale-contracts?
In a "contract of sale", the main object is the transfer of property and delivery of possession of the property, whereas the main object in a "contract for work" is not the transfer of the property but it is one for work and labour.
Another test often to be applied to is: when and how the property of the dealer in such a transaction passes to the customer: is it by transfer at the time of delivery of the finished article as a chattel or by accession during the procession of work on fusion to the movable property of the customer? If it is the former, it is a "sale"; if it is the latter, it is a "works- contract".
Therefore, in judging whether the contract is for a "sale" or for "work and labour", the essence of the contract or the reality of the transaction as a whole has to be taken into consideration
Whether supply of bus body after constructing and fitting the same to chassis provided by the Government is in pursuance of a sale or a works contract?
A contract of sale is a contract whose main object is the transfer of the property in, and the delivery of the possession of, a chattel as a chattel to the buyer. Where the main object of the work undertaken by the payee for the price is not the transfer of a chattel qua chattel, the contract is one for work and labour.
Whether sales tax can be levied on the respondent for the goods not accepted by the party?
Section 23(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1930, Where there is a contract for the sale of unascertained or future goods by description and goods of that description and in a deliverable state are unconditionally appropriated to the contract, either by the seller with the assent of the buyer or by the buyer with the assent of the seller, the property in the goods thereupon passes to the buyer. Such assent may be expressed or implied, and may be given either before or after the appropriation is made.
Whether the property in the 300 tons of newsprint in sheets had passed to the appellants before the resale?
Sec. 18 of the Sale of Goods Act says that, when the property in goods is said to pass to the buyer it says that it is only after the goods have been ascertained to the contract that the property in goods is said to pass to the buyer. Moreover, it adds that if the delivery is to be made of a smaller chunk out of whole then it does not connote ascertaining of goods.
Whether payment of premium by the insured to the general agent of the LIC can be regarded as payment to the insurer so as to constitute a discharge of liability of the insured?
Section 187 of the ICA explain the meaning of the express and implied agency. Section188 makes it mandatory for the agent to have the authority to do an act that he does. Section 237 says that an agent can do an act on behalf of the principal even if he does not have the authority if the principal makes the third party believe that the said person had the authority as an agent to do that act, principal can be held liable for the same.
Whether or not an estate agent is liable to disclose information to Principal , that comes to his knowledge from his dealings with another seller/principal?
In the case of estate agents, it is their business to act for numerous principals, several of whom might be competing and whose interests would conflict. Despite this conflict of interest, estate agents must be free to act for several competing principals, otherwise they will be unable to perform their function. Therefore, a term was to be implied in the contract with such an agent that he was entitled to act for other principal’s selling similar properties and to keep confidential information obtained from each principal.
If the employee of the bank, Shukla misappropriated the money, till what extent will the bank responsible for act of its employee?
The employer is not liable for the act of the servant if the cause of the loss or damage arose without his actual fault or privity or without the fault or neglect of his agents or servants in the course. of their employment;
the damage complained of must be shown to have been caused by any wrongful act of his servant or agent done within the scope or course of the servant or agent's employment even if the wrongful Act amounted to a crime
a master is liable for his servants fraud perpetrated in the course of master's business whether the fraud was for the master's benefit or not, if it was committed by the servant in the course of his employment. There is no difference in the liability of the master for wrongs whether for fraud or any other wrong committed by a servant in the course of his employment and it is a question of fact in each case whether it was committed in the course of the employment.
Whether the first respondent pledged certain quantity of aero scraps purchased by him from military authorities at Bamrauli Depot, Allahabad and delivered possession thereof to the appellant?
Whether the appellant was entitled to any relief when his case was that the first respondent never delivered to him the said goods and the said agreement never ripened into a pledge?
Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, deals with the rights of a Pawnee and provides that in case of default by the pawner the Pawnee has (1) the right to sue upon the debt and to retain the goods as collateral security, and (2) the right to-sell the goods after reasonable notice of the intended sale to the pawner. So long, however, as the sale does not take place, the pawner is entitled to redeem the goods on payment of the debit.
Whether the State was liable to compensate the respondent?
There can be bailment and existence of a 'relationship of a bailor and bailee in respect of specific property without there being an enforceable contract. Nor is consent indispensable for such a relationship to arise.