<?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>1935 (7) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175102</link>
    <description>Under Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act, title in specific or ascertained goods passes according to the parties&#039; intention, while Section 22 creates only a prima facie rule where the seller must do an act to ascertain price. Here, the contracts fixed the quantity and rate, the balance price was paid without any further act by the sellers, and the surrounding circumstances showed that ownership was intended to pass on payment. Measurement was therefore only for the buyer&#039;s satisfaction and did not postpone transfer. The buyer&#039;s title had already passed, so subsequent attachments and insolvency adjudication could not defeat it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2015 12:51:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404493" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1935 (7) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175102</link>
      <description>Under Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act, title in specific or ascertained goods passes according to the parties&#039; intention, while Section 22 creates only a prima facie rule where the seller must do an act to ascertain price. Here, the contracts fixed the quantity and rate, the balance price was paid without any further act by the sellers, and the surrounding circumstances showed that ownership was intended to pass on payment. Measurement was therefore only for the buyer&#039;s satisfaction and did not postpone transfer. The buyer&#039;s title had already passed, so subsequent attachments and insolvency adjudication could not defeat it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>