TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules jute ownership not transferred before fire. Plaintiffs bear loss. Cross-appeals dismissed.</h1> The court held that ownership of the jute had not transferred to the defendants before it was destroyed by fire, as the necessary conditions for ownership ... - Issues Involved1. Whether the property in the goods had passed to the defendants before they were destroyed by fire.2. Existence and proof of an express contract between the parties.3. Local usage and practice observed in Chandpur regarding jute transactions.4. Applicability of provisions of the Indian Contract Act relating to the sale of goods.5. Impact of insurance on the determination of ownership and liability for loss.Detailed Analysis1. Whether the property in the goods had passed to the defendants before they were destroyed by fireThe primary issue was whether the ownership of the jute had passed to the defendants before it was destroyed by fire. The court held that the ownership did not pass to the defendants because the jute had not been weighed, examined, and selected by the defendants, which was a prerequisite for the ownership transfer according to the local usage of trade at Chandpur. The court stated: 'The property in the goods remains with the fariahs so long as the weigh-ment is not made by the Company.'2. Existence and proof of an express contract between the partiesThe plaintiffs claimed an express contract existed, stipulating that the ownership of the jute would pass to the defendants upon storage in their godowns. However, the court found that the alleged contract was not satisfactorily proven. The court noted: 'The only evidence on the point is that of the plaintiff Abdul Aziz and Mukunda... We agree with the Court below in holding that the agreement set up by the plaintiffs has not been satisfactorily proved.'3. Local usage and practice observed in Chandpur regarding jute transactionsThe court relied heavily on the local usage and practice observed in Chandpur, which dictated that the sale was not complete until the jute was weighed, examined, and selected by the buyer. Witnesses testified that 'the sale is not complete until the goods are examined, selected and weighed by the Company.' This local usage was deemed to govern the transactions between the parties.4. Applicability of provisions of the Indian Contract Act relating to the sale of goodsThe court referred to Sections 79 to 81 of the Indian Contract Act, which state that ownership of goods does not transfer until the goods are ascertained and any necessary actions to ascertain the price are completed. The court emphasized: 'Section 79 says that where there is a contract for the sale of a thing which has yet to be ascertained, the ownership of the thing is not transferred to the buyer until it is ascertained.'5. Impact of insurance on the determination of ownership and liability for lossThe defendants had insured the jute as their own, which the plaintiffs argued was evidence of ownership transfer. However, the court held that the insurance was for the protection of the defendants' interest in the jute and did not indicate a transfer of ownership. The court stated: 'The defendants had an interest in the goods, and the insurance appears to have been intended for protection of their own interest in the jute, not for the protection of the seller's interest.'ConclusionThe court concluded that the ownership of the jute had not passed to the defendants at the time of the fire, as the necessary conditions of weighing, examining, and selecting the goods had not been fulfilled. Consequently, the plaintiffs bore the loss of the jute destroyed by fire. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court's decision, stating: 'We are of opinion that the decree of the Court below is correct, and the appeal shall be dismissed with costs.'Cross AppealsThe court also addressed two cross-appeals involving similar issues and ruled that the judgment in the primary case would govern these appeals as well. Both appeals were dismissed with costs, and one pleader's fee was allowed for both appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
