Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court rules in favor of plaintiffs in cotton contracts dispute, awarding claimed amount, interest, costs, and mortgage decree.</h1> <h3>Sir E. Sassoon Versus Tokersey Jadhawjee</h3> Sir E. Sassoon Versus Tokersey Jadhawjee - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the plaintiffs duly executed the instructions of the defendants and made agreements for the purchase of cotton as requested by the defendants.2. Whether the said agreements were contracts or agreements by way of gaming and wagering.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Execution of Instructions and Agreements for Purchase of CottonThe plaintiffs, David Sassoon and Co., received instructions from the defendants, members of the firm of Tokersey Jadhawji, to purchase American cotton. The transactions involved multiple orders: on March 15, 1901, instructions were given to purchase 500 bales for July-August delivery; on March 26, 1901, to purchase 500 bales for August-September delivery; and on April 23, 1901, to purchase 2,000 bales for August delivery. The plaintiffs executed these instructions by purchasing the cotton through their London branch, as evidenced by the delivery contract of March 15, 1901, which incorporated the printed rules of the Liverpool Cotton Association.The court found that the plaintiffs executed the instructions as requested, and the agreements were made in the ordinary form for future delivery, which was a common practice in the cotton trade. The evidence showed that delivery is ordinarily demanded and given under such contracts, and the contracts were in accordance with the terms agreed upon by both parties.Issue 2: Whether the Agreements Were by Way of Gaming and WageringThe defendants argued that the transactions were gambling and wagering transactions, making them void under Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act. The court clarified that for an agreement to be considered a wager, both parties must stand to win or lose based on an uncertain event. The court referred to precedents such as Hampden v. Walsh and Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to define a wager.The court examined whether the agreements made by the plaintiffs in England were by way of wager. The delivery contract of March 15, 1901, did not suggest an agreement by way of wager, and the evidence indicated that the contracts were ordinary purchases for future delivery. The fact that no delivery was made under these contracts was due to the defendants' failure to deposit cover for the deficiency in price, not because the contracts were wagers.The court also considered the defendants' argument that the plaintiffs never took delivery, suggesting an intention to wager. However, the court found no basis for this suggestion, as earlier transactions showed that tenders were made for delivery, and there was no evidence to prove that these tenders were not made in good faith.The court concluded that dealing in American futures, although speculative, is not necessarily wagering. The evidence showed that a significant portion of such transactions are bona fide, with delivery being demanded and given under contracts incorporating the rules of the Liverpool Cotton Association.The court rejected the argument that purchases for cover cannot be treated as bona fide business, noting that such purchases are a legitimate means of diminishing risks. The court found no sufficient materials to hold that the contracts between the plaintiffs and the defendants were agreements by way of wager.Judgment:The court held that the contracts in question were not agreements by way of wager and that the plaintiffs duly executed the instructions of the defendants. The plaintiffs were entitled to recover the amount claimed, with interest, and the usual mortgage decree in respect of the deposit of title deeds by way of equitable mortgage. The plaintiffs were also awarded costs throughout, which could be added to their security.In the second suit, a similar decree was issued, with liberty to apply in the first suit for the application of the surplus proceeds of the sale therein decreed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found