<?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>1968 (12) TMI 106 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273228</link>
    <description>A commission agent appointed to sell goods on commission qualifies as a mercantile agent under Section 2(9) of the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930, because the agency authorises sale in the ordinary course of that business even if it is created for a single principal or transaction. On that basis, a suit arising from commission-sale dealings between the agent and the principal, when the claim exceeded the statutory value threshold, fell within Item 4 of the First Schedule to the City Civil Court Act and was outside City Civil Court jurisdiction. The jurisdictional objection was sustained and the plaint was ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=523266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (12) TMI 106 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273228</link>
      <description>A commission agent appointed to sell goods on commission qualifies as a mercantile agent under Section 2(9) of the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930, because the agency authorises sale in the ordinary course of that business even if it is created for a single principal or transaction. On that basis, a suit arising from commission-sale dealings between the agent and the principal, when the claim exceeded the statutory value threshold, fell within Item 4 of the First Schedule to the City Civil Court Act and was outside City Civil Court jurisdiction. The jurisdictional objection was sustained and the plaint was ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Dec 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273228</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>