<?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>2001 (8) TMI 1414 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189520</link>
    <description>Title to specific goods passes according to the parties&#039; intention under the Sale of Goods Act; registration or permit transfer formalities do not themselves transfer ownership. On the facts, the buses were to be delivered only after price ascertainment and payment, which had not occurred, so title did not pass to the first defendant and the plaintiff remained entitled to profits. Subsequent transferees with notice of the prior contract were not bona fide purchasers and could be bound in equity, so the decree against defendants 4 to 7 stood. Refusal of additional evidence was upheld, but interest was disallowed for want of contractual or legal foundation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 17:37:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455024" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1414 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189520</link>
      <description>Title to specific goods passes according to the parties&#039; intention under the Sale of Goods Act; registration or permit transfer formalities do not themselves transfer ownership. On the facts, the buses were to be delivered only after price ascertainment and payment, which had not occurred, so title did not pass to the first defendant and the plaintiff remained entitled to profits. Subsequent transferees with notice of the prior contract were not bona fide purchasers and could be bound in equity, so the decree against defendants 4 to 7 stood. Refusal of additional evidence was upheld, but interest was disallowed for want of contractual or legal foundation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189520</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>