<?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>1985 (3) TMI 312 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281517</link>
    <description>An agreement for the sale and transfer of woollen spindles without prior written permission of the Textile Commissioner was unlawful and unenforceable, because Clause 3(1) of the Woollen Textiles (Production and Distribution) Control Order, 1962 prohibited such disposal without permission. The contract was therefore hit by Sections 23 and 24 of the Indian Contract Act, as its object was forbidden by law and enforcement would defeat the statutory restriction. Section 65 did not apply, since the arrangement was void from inception rather than later discovered void. The plaintiff could not recover the balance price, and the defendant could not claim refund of the advance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2019 16:35:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=576111" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (3) TMI 312 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281517</link>
      <description>An agreement for the sale and transfer of woollen spindles without prior written permission of the Textile Commissioner was unlawful and unenforceable, because Clause 3(1) of the Woollen Textiles (Production and Distribution) Control Order, 1962 prohibited such disposal without permission. The contract was therefore hit by Sections 23 and 24 of the Indian Contract Act, as its object was forbidden by law and enforcement would defeat the statutory restriction. Section 65 did not apply, since the arrangement was void from inception rather than later discovered void. The plaintiff could not recover the balance price, and the defendant could not claim refund of the advance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281517</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>