https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292739 A sale of yarn was treated as an agreement to sell, so title would pass only on unconditional appropriation or delivery without reservation of disposal under the Sale of Goods Act. On the facts, the evidence did not establish that the sale was completed within Madras Province, and the party alleging illegality failed to discharge the burden of proof. The claim of illegality under the Madras Yarn (Dealers) Control Order, 1943 therefore failed. Relief by way of rebate under the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Contracts) Ordinance, 1944 was also unavailable because the statutory condition depended on delivery after the maximum price was fixed, and that timing requirement was not met. en-us Thu, 12 Sep 1946 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jan 2021 13:21:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292739 A sale of yarn was treated as an agreement to sell, so title would pass only on unconditional appropriation or delivery without reservation of disposal under the Sale of Goods Act. On the facts, the evidence did not establish that the sale was completed within Madras Province, and the party alleging illegality failed to discharge the burden of proof. The claim of illegality under the Madras Yarn (Dealers) Control Order, 1943 therefore failed. Relief by way of rebate under the Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Contracts) Ordinance, 1944 was also unavailable because the statutory condition depended on delivery after the maximum price was fixed, and that timing requirement was not met. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 12 Sep 1946 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292739