<?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>2014 (1) TMI 1853 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT AT GOA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277662</link>
    <description>A dealer holding a vehicle under a trade certificate remained required to keep it insured until delivery, and the insurer could not avoid liability merely because the vehicle carried temporary registration at the time of the accident. Applying the Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the court treated the trade-certificate policy as valid while the vehicle stayed in the dealer&#039;s possession and had not been delivered to the purchaser. On ownership, the Sale of Goods Act was applied to hold that title had not passed to the proposed purchaser because the sale was incomplete and delivery and acceptance were not concluded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2018 06:35:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=547102" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 1853 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT AT GOA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277662</link>
      <description>A dealer holding a vehicle under a trade certificate remained required to keep it insured until delivery, and the insurer could not avoid liability merely because the vehicle carried temporary registration at the time of the accident. Applying the Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the court treated the trade-certificate policy as valid while the vehicle stayed in the dealer&#039;s possession and had not been delivered to the purchaser. On ownership, the Sale of Goods Act was applied to hold that title had not passed to the proposed purchaser because the sale was incomplete and delivery and acceptance were not concluded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>