https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461900 Delivery to a carrier did not amount to delivery to the buyer where the railway receipt named the seller as consignee, so the Government price order continued to apply. The contract then became void when the supervening price control made performance unlawful, but restitution under section 65 was unavailable because that provision covers advantages received before a contract becomes void, not amounts received after enforceability has ceased. Section 72 could extend to mistake of law as well as fact, yet it did not permit selective recovery of part of a contractual payment as a severable excess on these facts. The claim therefore failed and the dismissal of the suit was sustained with costs. en-us Wed, 03 Jan 1945 00:00:00 +0630 Wed, 07 May 2025 18:05:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461900 Delivery to a carrier did not amount to delivery to the buyer where the railway receipt named the seller as consignee, so the Government price order continued to apply. The contract then became void when the supervening price control made performance unlawful, but restitution under section 65 was unavailable because that provision covers advantages received before a contract becomes void, not amounts received after enforceability has ceased. Section 72 could extend to mistake of law as well as fact, yet it did not permit selective recovery of part of a contractual payment as a severable excess on these facts. The claim therefore failed and the dismissal of the suit was sustained with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Jan 1945 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461900