https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313948 A State buyer could not resist payment for goods received by relying on an alleged renewal arrangement that did not comply with Article 299 of the Constitution, so the seller was entitled to recover the sale price. Interest on the unpaid price was maintainable under Section 61(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, but only from expiry of the contractual 15-day credit period after delivery. The buyer's counterclaim failed because no valid contract binding the State was proved and the buyer was itself in default, though the advance deposit was directed to be credited in final adjustment. en-us Tue, 26 Nov 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 May 2024 16:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313948 A State buyer could not resist payment for goods received by relying on an alleged renewal arrangement that did not comply with Article 299 of the Constitution, so the seller was entitled to recover the sale price. Interest on the unpaid price was maintainable under Section 61(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, but only from expiry of the contractual 15-day credit period after delivery. The buyer's counterclaim failed because no valid contract binding the State was proved and the buyer was itself in default, though the advance deposit was directed to be credited in final adjustment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Nov 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313948