https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175101 The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the fifth defendant (Sethiya and Co.) was not liable for non-delivery of goods as there was no privity of contract with the plaintiff. It was also established that Sethiya and Co. did not act as agents for the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim for conversion of goods failed due to lack of evidence of ownership. Additionally, the plaintiff was not considered an agent of the Government of Assam and could not claim reimbursement for losses incurred in procuring yarn. The court directed each party to bear their own costs. en-us Fri, 12 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 12:44:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175101 The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the fifth defendant (Sethiya and Co.) was not liable for non-delivery of goods as there was no privity of contract with the plaintiff. It was also established that Sethiya and Co. did not act as agents for the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim for conversion of goods failed due to lack of evidence of ownership. Additionally, the plaintiff was not considered an agent of the Government of Assam and could not claim reimbursement for losses incurred in procuring yarn. The court directed each party to bear their own costs. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 12 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175101