TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the suit was within limitation by exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act; (ii) whether the defendant was liable as vendor, or only as a commission agent, for the quality of the mustard oil supplied.
Issue (i): Whether the suit was within limitation by exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Analysis: The earlier proceeding had been pursued in a court lacking jurisdiction, and the plaintiff had acted throughout with bona fide diligence. The period spent in the wrong court, and the short interval up to the actual return of the plaint for presentation in the proper court, was treated as time spent in bona fide prosecution. The fresh suit filed shortly thereafter was therefore not barred.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the respondent. The suit was held to be within limitation.
Issue (ii): Whether the defendant was liable as vendor, or only as a commission agent, for the quality of the mustard oil supplied.
Analysis: On the documentary materials and surrounding circumstances, the defendant was found to have held itself out as the vendor and principal in the transaction, not merely as a commission agent. In any event, the defendant had undertaken to supply oil of pure quality, so liability for adulteration attached. The defendant was therefore answerable for the defective quality, and its liability was co-extensive with that of the manufacturer.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. The defendant was held liable for the claim allowed by the court below.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in both limitation and merits, and the decree in favour of the respondent was maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: Time spent in bona fide prosecution before a court lacking jurisdiction may be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act until the plaint is actually returned for presentation in the proper court, and a party who holds itself out as vendor and undertakes quality assurance is liable for defective goods notwithstanding a plea of commission agency.
TaxTMI 
