<?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>1997 (5) TMI 424 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171472</link>
    <description>Delegated legislation cannot enlarge a statutory presumption or create a new deeming fiction beyond the scope of the parent Act; Rule 74(2) and the Explanation to Bye-law 24(5) were therefore ultra vires because they treated weighment, measurement or counting within the market area as sufficient to deem a sale. In determining the place of sale of specific goods, the decisive test is the parties&#039; intention as shown by the contract, conduct and surrounding circumstances under the Sale of Goods Act. On the facts, the goods were despatched at the purchaser&#039;s risk, transit loss remained the purchaser&#039;s concern, and title had passed on despatch from Kerala, so the sale was completed in Kerala and not Hyderabad.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:25:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390924" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 424 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171472</link>
      <description>Delegated legislation cannot enlarge a statutory presumption or create a new deeming fiction beyond the scope of the parent Act; Rule 74(2) and the Explanation to Bye-law 24(5) were therefore ultra vires because they treated weighment, measurement or counting within the market area as sufficient to deem a sale. In determining the place of sale of specific goods, the decisive test is the parties&#039; intention as shown by the contract, conduct and surrounding circumstances under the Sale of Goods Act. On the facts, the goods were despatched at the purchaser&#039;s risk, transit loss remained the purchaser&#039;s concern, and title had passed on despatch from Kerala, so the sale was completed in Kerala and not Hyderabad.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171472</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>