TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellants, as transporter and warehousekeeper, could resist delivery of the goods to the owner until their charges were paid; whether the order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 exceeded the court's jurisdiction; and whether title in the goods had passed to the buyer.
Analysis: The agreement showed that the goods were to be delivered against payment of the sale consideration, and only part of the consideration had been paid. Applying the rule that property in specific goods passes when the parties intend it to pass, the Court found that title had not passed to the buyer and continued to vest in the seller. The transporter had been appointed by the buyer and acted as its agent, with no privity of contract with the seller or the warehousekeeper. The correspondence also indicated that transportation and warehousing charges were the buyer's liability. The restraint order was treated as a permissible interim measure to preserve and protect the subject goods pending arbitration, and the fact that the appellants were not parties to the arbitration agreement did not defeat that relief.
Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to withhold the goods for their charges, and the court's interim directions under Section 9 were upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the respondent was entitled to take possession of the goods without prior payment of the appellants' transportation or warehousing charges, leaving the appellants to pursue their monetary claims against the buyer.
Ratio Decidendi: Where property in goods has not passed under the parties' contract, the owner may obtain interim protection of the goods under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and an intermediary without privity of contract cannot retain the goods merely to secure its charges against a third party.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
