<?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>1967 (12) TMI 60 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172450</link>
    <description>A contract is treated as a non-transferable specific delivery contract when its true construction, read with surrounding circumstances, shows that transfer was not contemplated, even if there is no express prohibition on assignment. The Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 distinguishes ready delivery contracts from forward contracts, and only non-transferable specific delivery contracts fall outside the Act&#039;s operation. On the stated facts, the urgent supply of jute bags, nominated vessels, pre-shipment inspection, and specified consignee and destination supported an implied agreement against transfer. The contract was therefore held to be a non-transferable specific delivery contract and was not invalidated by the Government notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:46:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=394262" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (12) TMI 60 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172450</link>
      <description>A contract is treated as a non-transferable specific delivery contract when its true construction, read with surrounding circumstances, shows that transfer was not contemplated, even if there is no express prohibition on assignment. The Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 distinguishes ready delivery contracts from forward contracts, and only non-transferable specific delivery contracts fall outside the Act&#039;s operation. On the stated facts, the urgent supply of jute bags, nominated vessels, pre-shipment inspection, and specified consignee and destination supported an implied agreement against transfer. The contract was therefore held to be a non-transferable specific delivery contract and was not invalidated by the Government notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172450</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>