<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1968 (4) TMI 75 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169459</link>
    <description>A contract for sale of imported chicory was not void when made merely because it breached administrative licence conditions; that breach did not itself amount to a statutory contravention under the import control law then in force. However, once the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 came into force, the licence condition prohibiting sale made performance unlawful, and section 56 of the Indian Contract Act rendered the contract void for supervening illegality. The agreement could not be enforced because it related to specific goods and the seller could not bypass the prohibition by treating the contract as still performable. The appeal succeeded and the suit failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:21:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=382523" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (4) TMI 75 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169459</link>
      <description>A contract for sale of imported chicory was not void when made merely because it breached administrative licence conditions; that breach did not itself amount to a statutory contravention under the import control law then in force. However, once the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 came into force, the licence condition prohibiting sale made performance unlawful, and section 56 of the Indian Contract Act rendered the contract void for supervening illegality. The agreement could not be enforced because it related to specific goods and the seller could not bypass the prohibition by treating the contract as still performable. The appeal succeeded and the suit failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169459</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>