https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194817 Title to specific goods had not passed to the buyer because the contract required delivery against payment and only part of the price was paid. On that basis, the owner was entitled to interim protection of the goods under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the restraint order was upheld as a permissible measure pending arbitration. The transporter and warehousekeeper, having acted for the buyer and lacking privity with the seller, could not withhold delivery merely to secure their charges. Their transportation and warehousing claims were left to be pursued against the buyer. en-us Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Sep 2017 17:00:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194817 Title to specific goods had not passed to the buyer because the contract required delivery against payment and only part of the price was paid. On that basis, the owner was entitled to interim protection of the goods under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the restraint order was upheld as a permissible measure pending arbitration. The transporter and warehousekeeper, having acted for the buyer and lacking privity with the seller, could not withhold delivery merely to secure their charges. Their transportation and warehousing claims were left to be pursued against the buyer. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194817