<?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>1965 (3) TMI 93 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193033</link>
    <description>An owner may validly pledge goods by endorsing and transferring the railway receipt representing them, because the receipt operates as a document of title and its transfer can amount to constructive delivery. Reading the Contract Act, Sale of Goods Act and Transfer of Property Act together, the Court treated the loan, promissory note and receipt endorsement as showing an intention to secure the bank&#039;s control over the goods until repayment, and upheld the pledge. However, a railway receipt is not a negotiable instrument and does not by itself transfer the contract of carriage. A separate assignment must be proved before rights on that contract can be enforced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:29:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=480428" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (3) TMI 93 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193033</link>
      <description>An owner may validly pledge goods by endorsing and transferring the railway receipt representing them, because the receipt operates as a document of title and its transfer can amount to constructive delivery. Reading the Contract Act, Sale of Goods Act and Transfer of Property Act together, the Court treated the loan, promissory note and receipt endorsement as showing an intention to secure the bank&#039;s control over the goods until repayment, and upheld the pledge. However, a railway receipt is not a negotiable instrument and does not by itself transfer the contract of carriage. A separate assignment must be proved before rights on that contract can be enforced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>