GREY AREA BETWEEN MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE GOODS
Authors: Garima Agrawal & Anamika Tiwari,
B.A.L.L.B,
O. P. Jindal Global University.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Aims and Objectives
The aim of this research is to explore grey area between moveable and immoveable goods and also understand what all items can be termed as ‘goods’ using case laws. The Indian judiciary has witnessed evolution of laws related to moveable and immoveable goods at a great extent. This research paper shows the evolution of those laws through various cases.
Scope of the Research
This research deals with descriptive form of research where the researchers have used theoretical arguments supported by the case laws. Many statutes, articles and books have been referred and very deep study has been done in understanding the cases ranging from 1913 to 2016. We have tried to show in the research paper the position of laws in context of goods, moveable property and immoveable property over a century.
Research Pattern
The research is mainly divided into two parts:
(i) The first part the researchers have referred various statues and books. They have used theoretical arguments while quantitatively analyzing the case laws.
(ii) The second part deals with various case laws showing classification of various items under goods, moveable goods and immoveable goods.
Acknowledgements
The researchers would like to thank their Contract Professor, Ms. Ruchika Rao, Assistant professor, OP Jindal Global University for her constant support and encouragement to carry out this research. We would also like to thank each other for showing sheer determination and cooperation during the research.
1. INTRODUCTION
‘Goods’ in American English means ‘any item for sale, or possessions that can be moved’[1].Goods in a transaction or in any business activity holds a major position as it makes the essence of the transaction taking place. Under Section 2(7) of The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (further herein referred to as SOGA) the term “goods” has been defined and is widely applicable and used in the Indian law wherever there is mention of goods. Under this section goods are termed to be movable property and thereby, supplementing the definition of ‘goods’ by the definition of movable and immovable property as mentioned under Section 3(36) and Section 3(26) of The General Clauses Act, 1897. The various acts in Indian Judiciary like the Indian Contract Act,1897, the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, The General Clauses Act, 1897, The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, The Transfer of Property Act,1882 and others deal with ‘goods’ but each statue deals with different goods differently. Some statues take into consideration only movable goods, some immovable while others include both immovable and movable within the ambit of ‘goods’. In certain cases, a movable property can become immovable property and vice versa, depending upon the attachments to the good and the statutory interpretation to the movable and immovable part of the good, thereby, leaving a vast grey area between a good being termed as movable or immovable.
2. DEFINITION OF GOODS
The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 under Section 2(7) has defined ‘goods’ as, ““goods” means every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money; and includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale”, thereby drawing a parallel analogy with the common law definition of ‘goods’ as stated in Section 61 of The (English)Sale of Goods Act, 1979, “”goods” include all the personal chattels other than things in action and money, and in Scotland all corporeal movable except money, and in particular “goods” includes emblements, industrial growing crops, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under contract of sale.” [2]In order to understand the Indian legislations, a parallel is always drawn from the common law and so was in the case of “sale of goods” which according to both the laws should be a valid contract in eyes of law as “in order to constitute a sale it is necessary that there should be an agreement between the parties for the purpose of transferring title to the goods, which pre-supposes capacity to contract, that the contract must be supported by valuable consideration and that as a result of the transaction property must actually pass in the goods. ‘Unless all these elements are present, there can be no sale.”[3] and thereby repealing Chapter VII of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (further herein referred to as ICA) which is related with sale of goods and instituting the ‘sale of goods’ in a different, new act.
‘Goods’ is also mentioned in clause 12 of Article 336 of the Indian Constitution as, “goods includes all materials, commodities, and articles;”, though not defined but the term ‘includes’ widens the scope of interpretation.
‘Goods’ is also defined under Section 2(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as, ““goods” includes all materials, articles, commodities and all other kinds of movable property, but does not include 5[newspapers] actionable claims, stocks, shares and securities. 5[(dd) “place of business” includes—
(i) in any case where a dealer carries on business through an agent by (whatever name called), the place of business of such agent;
(ii) a warehouse, godown or other place where a dealer stores his goods; and
(iii) a place where a dealer keeps his books of account;”
Later, the scope of goods as mentioned in the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was widened and defined under Section 2(52) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 as, ““goods” means every kind of movable property other than money and securities but includes actionable claim, growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before supply or under a contract of supply.”
5.3&n
3. STRICT INTERPRETATION OF ‘GOODS’ IN INDIAN LAW
In the landmark case of Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh[4], the court dealt with the issue of the intellectual property in floppies, disks or CD- ROMs being termed as ‘goods’ under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The court observed the difference between tangible and intangible goods or as the Indian courts describe them to, be corporeal and incorporeal materials but did not analyze it in detail because then it would have accounted to rewriting of law or interpreting the law which is not the courts work but the work of Legislatures. According to Justice Variva, there exists no distinction between tangible and intangible property in Indian law, but the goods as in a layman’s language can be termed as ‘tangible’ and ‘intangible’, so to avoid confusion, the Indian law has described goods based on (a) its utility; (b) capable of being bought and sold; and (c) capable of transmitted, transferred, delivered, stored and possessed.
With this observation, the court in this case held that the appellant will be liable to pay tax as the software constitutes the mentioned properties but the courts made a distinction with regard to canned software which are made for sale to a particular consumer only. In this case the element of severability was not taken into consideration as the court followed the American courts. It was also observed by the court that SOGA constitutes general property and not merely a specific property.
4. MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
The contract of sale of goods deals with goods which are movable in nature as stated under Section 2(7) of SOGA. Movable property is defined under Section 3(36) of the General Clauses Act, 1897(further herein referred to as GCA) as, ““property of every description except immovable property” and the same act defines ‘immovable property’ under Section 3(26) as, “Immovable property shall include land, benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth.” Section 3 of The Transfer of Property Act,1882 being an interpretation clause interprets “immovable property” in a way by mentioning the things which does not come under immovable property, which are standing timber, growing crop or grass. A conjoint reading of the sections 3(36) and 3(26) of the GCA helps us understand that properties which are attached to land are immovable in nature but can be treated as movable if the element of severability exists.[5]We also understand that if the purpose of annexation of a thing is to confer permanent benefit to land then it can be termed to be an immovable property while on the other the hand if the thing itself is being used and enjoyed then it can be termed as movable property. While deciding the nature of property the element of severability plays a major role and it can be determined by the nature of contract which exist between the parties. In various cases in India it was noted that the element of severability changed the property from being immovable to movable and vice versa.
5. GOODS AS MOVABLE OR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
In Fazal v. Mangal Das[6], it was held that the term ‘goods’ as mentioned under SOGA has a much wider sense than found in common law and also it has been subsequently observed as because be it a decree, shares or software programs these come within the ambit of ‘goods’ as defined under Section 2(7) of SOGA. Section 2(7) of SOGA has an element of a contractual relationship of which the good is a part to come under definition of ‘goods’ under this section. Along with this, this section widens the scope by mentioning movable and immovable property. “Goods” as per SOGA does not contain any specific number of things or materials or items, unlike the English law which gives a specific list of items. A decree, stock and share certificates comes under the ambit of “goods” as per SOGA. Also, The Select committee has in the definition of “goods” have su
bstituted “stocks and shares” in order to make in more accurate and thereby observing that the definition of goods under Indian law is much wider than in English law.[7] In order to know that what goods fall under the “goods” as per SOGA it is necessary to determine that whether the particular thing is movable or immovable in nature and that, that thing has been termed to be a good or not in any other statute like Section 29 of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 implied that currency notes are not goods. The element of severability is also taken into account as a timber tress though is attached to land but once severed from land are taken to the market for the purpose of sale thereby making it fall under that ambit of “goods” as defined under Section 2(7) of SOGA. Also, different sets of cause of action helps determine that whether a good is movable or immovable[8].
bstituted “stocks and shares” in order to make in more accurate and thereby observing that the definition of goods under Indian law is much wider than in English law.[7] In order to know that what goods fall under the “goods” as per SOGA it is necessary to determine that whether the particular thing is movable or immovable in nature and that, that thing has been termed to be a good or not in any other statute like Section 29 of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 implied that currency notes are not goods. The element of severability is also taken into account as a timber tress though is attached to land but once severed from land are taken to the market for the purpose of sale thereby making it fall under that ambit of “goods” as defined under Section 2(7) of SOGA. Also, different sets of cause of action helps determine that whether a good is movable or immovable[8].
5.1 Actionable claims
Under Section 3 of The Transfer of Property Act,1882. “actionable claim” has been defined as, ““actionable claim” means a claim to any debt, other than a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property or by hypothecation or pledge of movable property, or to any beneficial interest in movable property not in the possession, either actual or constructive, of the claimant, which the civil courts recognize as affording grounds for relief, whether such debt or beneficial interest be existent, accruing, conditional or contingent;”. Arrears of rents, lottery tickets, dividend on shares and others can be termed to be actionable claims.[9] Non- actionable claims include a claim to mesne profits, copyrights, situation where a decree provides for a future decree and this future is a non-actionable claim and many other such things.[10] Under Section 2(52) and Section 2(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, actionable claim comes under the ambit of “goods” whereas earlier under Section 2(d) of Central Service Tax Act, 1956 actionable claim was not included in “goods”.
Under Section 2(7) of SOGA, actionable claim falls under the ambit of ‘goods’ because it is a movable property while non-actionable claims being attached to immovable properties are not considered.
5.2 Money and Currency notes
Money, as in current money is not treated as “goods” but it was held in Moss v. Hancock[11] case that a Jubilee five pond gold piece bought as curio can be treated to be “goods” rather than money. Neither are currency, “goods” as per SOGA even though according to Section 29 of Reserve Bank of India Act (2 of 1934) they include Bank Notes. Emblems of money constituting ‘legal tenders’ such as currency notes do not come under the ambit of ‘goods’ because it is governed by a totally different set of principles and rule of law.
5.3&n
bsp;Shares
It was observed in Vadilal v. Manekji[12] case that shares in a company are “goods” within Section 2 of SOGA. It was held in Vasudev Ramachandra Shelat V. Pranlal Jayanand Thakar and Ors[13] that shares are movable property and so comes within the ambit of Section 2(7) of SOGA. It is also observed that shares can be termed to be ‘goods’ according to SOGA as the moment the transfer of shares take place and the buyer receives the share, the intended sale gets completed. ‘Goods’ also include an interest of a partner in a partnership[14]. “The term ‘goods’ as used in Section 2(7) of SOGA is equivalent to the expression “goods” wares and merchandise, which expression in the Statue of Frauds has always been held to comprehend all corporeal, movable property but not to apply to choose to action.” [15]
5.4 Gas, Water and Electricity
Gas, water and electricity are considered to be non-movable property and therefore not ‘goods’ as defined under Section 2(7) of SOGA. This argument has been discussed and has been challenged many times thereby leaving an ambiguity in this subject matter. Under English law, electricity does not come under the ambit of goods as in the judicial decisions held there in electricity were termed to be ‘thing’, ‘article’ or ‘personal tangible property’. It was considered to be a challenge as “it is capable of being kept or stored only by changing the physical or chemical state of other property which is itself the subject of possession.”[16]
Indian law varies widely in considering electricity do be a movable or immovable one. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh Indore v. Madhya[17] it was observed that “goods” means all kinds of movable properties. There are certain items which are included or excluded but electric energy or electricity is not one of them. Movable Properties when considered with goods for the purpose of Sale of Tax cannot be taken into a narrow sense. It was held that merely because it is not tangible and cannot be touched or moved like a book or a piece of wood, it does not cease to be a movable property when it has all attributes of it. It can be transmitted, transferred, delivered and stored like any other movable property. In Orient Papers and Industries Ltd. v. Orissa State Electricity Board[18] it was held that electricity has a value, which has utility and same can be transferable also. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that it comes under the definition of goods as defines under Article 366 (12) of the Constitution. Also in the State Financial Corporation Act, ‘manufacture’ and ‘production’ has been used in the respect of facts. Generation of Electricity for the purpose of the Act is for ‘production’ and ‘manufacture’ of electricity, since both these terms have to be given a wide meaning.
In 8th Law Commission of India report it was proposed that electricity and water must be included within the ambit of definition of goods as under Section 2(7) of SOGA determining that electricity can be stolen and since electricity can be bought and sold and thus constituting sales can come within ‘goods’.[19]Pollock and Mulla, states their concern against this proposition in the Law Commission because according to them, electricity is supplied by government and therefore is a statutory duty.[20]If there is less or no supply of electricity then it would be breach of statutory duty rather t
han any contractual obligation because there is no buyer or seller, there is a statutory body performing its duty for public good. It can be observed that Pollock and Mulla have not taken into consideration the electricity provided by private industries though still the government has regulation over them. Therefore, water, gas and electricity of which though electricity can be termed to be ‘goods’ but this is not clear as it has been observed to be varied from case to case across the time.
han any contractual obligation because there is no buyer or seller, there is a statutory body performing its duty for public good. It can be observed that Pollock and Mulla have not taken into consideration the electricity provided by private industries though still the government has regulation over them. Therefore, water, gas and electricity of which though electricity can be termed to be ‘goods’ but this is not clear as it has been observed to be varied from case to case across the time.
5.5 Lottery Tickets
Black law’s dictionary defines lottery as, “a chance for a prize for a price”[21].In H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu[22] it was held that, until the draw takes place, right to participate in the draw under a lottery ticket remains a valuable right. Due to this reason, licensed agents, wholesalers or dealers of such tickets have the right to effect sale until draw takes place. Therefore, lottery tickets not as physical articles but as slip of papers or memoranda evidencing the right to participate in the draw can be termed as dealer’s merchandise. Lottery tickets, therefore, are goods capable of being bought and sold in the market and thereby taking lottery within the ambit of ‘goods’. This decision of the court was overruled in the case of Sunrise Associates v Govt. of NCT Delhi[23] wherein it was held that lottery tickets is a part of actionable claim which is defined under Section 3 of The Transfer of Property Act,1882 because the court observed that there was no distinction between right to participate and right to win and in a lottery the amount paid is not for the participation but contrarily it acts as a consideration in order to win the lottery and thereby excluding ‘lotter tickets’ from the ambit of goods but still some form of actionable claims are considered to be within the ambit of goods as described under Section 2(7) of SOGA.
5.6 Things Attached to or Forming Part of the Land
Asphalts plants are equipments which are used to produce hot mix asphalt by aggregating different materials in specific quantities.[24]In Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad v. Solid and Correct Engineering works and Others[25] it was held that mere attachment to earth does not quality a plan to be treated as immovable property. To qualify as immovable property, the attachment has to be for permanent beneficial enjoyment of the land and should not have separate existence sans land. Here, attachment of the plant to the foundation was to provide stability to the plant. It was neither permanent nor was for beneficial enjoyment. Therefore, the plant per se in not immovable property and such plants cannot be termed as “attached to earth” within the meaning of the expression as defined in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. With this view, we can take the plant within the ambit of ‘goods’ because it is not immovable property. This also explains that how the things attached to forming part of a land can be both movable and immovable in nature.
Similar is the situation with standing crops, the crops which are grown like cereals but with a different decision from the court. In Kotagiri Venkatraramarayanim And Ors. V. Partibanda Basavayya it was held that standing crop at the time of attachment will be considered in India as an immoveable property. Any illegal attachment to the land with the crop thereon is trespass to an immoveable property. But the sugarcane which is supplied to a sugar factory can be termed to be goods within the ambit of Section 2(7) of SOGAas was observed in case of U. P. Coop Cane Unions Federation v. West U.P. Sugar Mills Association[26].
6. GOODS, AS IN INTERPRETED UNDER THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (further herein referred to as ICA), before 1930 constituted Chapter VII which dealt with sale of goods but with the enactment of The Sale of Goods Act in 1930, Sections 73 to 123 were repealed making sale of goods a matter of extreme importance as a new Act was enacted. ICA mainly deals with movable goods in whole because the goods mentioned therein are as defined under Section 2(7) of SOGA. The ‘goods’ taken into consideration in bailment under ICA is that of movable nature because there must be actual transfer of possession of goods.[27]
Lien is defined to be a legal right which is granted by the owner of the property and is acquired by the creditor. Right to lien is used to safeguard the interest of a creditor as, if any underlying obligation is not satisfied then the creditor will have right to seize the asset which is the subject of the lien.[28]Right to lien as a doctrine deals with both movable and immovable goods. In ICA, lien is dealt with under Section 170 and Section 171 of ICA whereby right to lien is a right to be exercised by the bailee. The lien in ICA is restricted to the scope of movable goods only because bailment under ICA is related with goods as defined under SOGA thereby restricting its scope. In the case R. D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma[29], it was held that the word “goods” mentioned in Section 171 of ICA, must be considered in sense of goods as defined under SOGA and because Section 2(7) of SOGA also includes a contractual nature so as to the goods have a sense to be sold, similarly in this case the files were not considered to be goods as though movable in nature but cannot fall under the ambit of “goods” as per SOGA, so the advocate was denied right to lien and neither had the party bailed their “goods” because legal files were not considered “goods” under SOGA.
The term ‘goods’ as mentioned in Section 178 of ICA which defines pledge, pawnor and pawnee is wide enough to also include share certificates because share certificates are movable property within the ambit of Section 76 of ICA which after 1930 is the Section 2 of SOGA and so are to be included under ‘goods’ as defined under Section 2(7) of SOGA.[30] It is the exhaustive nature of the definition of ‘goods’ which make sit include stocks and shares within its ambit.
CONCLUSION
The above paper gives us an idea about the evolution of laws regarding goods, moveable goods and immoveable goods. It shows how the judiciary has dealt with a very tough task of classification of items under goods and further classification of goods under moveable and immoveable and how still there is a grey space left between them as the courts go on interpreting the statues and classifying the various things or so to say commodities present. I hope this paper explains the reader the thin line between moveable goods and immoveable goods through the cases cited and arguments used.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(Including description)
|
S. No.
|
Name of the case
|
Year
|
Jurisdiction/Court
|
Citation
|
Primary/Civil Statutes
|
Area of Law
|
Thing/Object/Property
|
Immovable Property/Goods/
Movable Property
|
|
1.
|
Moss v. Hancock
|
1899
|
Divisional Court
|
(1899) 2 QB 111: 68 LJBQ 657: 80 LT 693
|
Larceny Act, 1861
|
Criminal Law
Goods
|
Jubilee five pond gold piece bought as curio
|
Goods
|
|
2.
|
Kotagiri Venkatraramarayanim And Ors. V Partibanda Basavayya
|
1913
|
Madras High Court
|
1913 MHC
|
Limitation Act
|
Transfer of Property
Limitation Law
|
Standing Crops
|
Immovable Property
|
|
3.
|
Vadilal v. Manekji
|
1923
|
Bombay High Court
|
25 Bom LR 414: AIR 1923 Bom 372
|
The Indian Contract Act , 1872
The Sale of Goods Act, 1930
|
Company Law
Goods
Contract Act
|
Shares
|
Goods
|
|
4.
|
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh Indore v. Madhya Pradesh
|
1968
|
Supreme Court of India
|
1970 AIR 732, 1969 SCR (2) 939
|
Berar Sales Tax Act, 1958
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Madras Sales Act, 1959
Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act
Indian Electricity Act, 1910
Indian Limitation Act
General Clauses Act
Sales of Good Act, 1930
Sales of Goods Act, 1913
|
Tax Law
Sale of Goods
|
Electricity
|
Movable property
|
|
5.
|
Vasudev Ramachandra Shelat V. Pranlal Jayanand Thakar and Ors
|
1974
|
Supreme Couet of India
|
1974 AIR 1728, 1975 SCR (1) 534
|
Transfer of property Act
Companies Act, 1913
Contract ACT
The Indian Contract Act
Sale of Goods Act
|
Contract Law
Property Law
Sale of Goods
Company Law
|
Shares
|
Goods/ Movable Property
|
|
6.
|
H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu
|
1985
|
Supreme Court of India
|
1986 AIR 63, 1985 SCR Supl. (3) 342
|
Bengal finance Act, 1941
Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959
Berar Sales Act, 1947
Lotteries Act, 1823
Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959
West Bengal Taxation Laws Act, 1984
Transfer of Property Act
Companies Act
Sale of Goods Act, 1930
|
Tax Law
Property Law
Company Law
Sale of Goods
|
Lottery Tickets
|
Goods
|
|
7.
|
Orient Papers and Industries Ltd. v. Orissa State Electricity Board
|
1989
|
Orissa High Court
|
1989 (42) ELT 552 Ori
|
Central Excises and Salt Act
Indian Electricity Act
Electricity Supply Act, 1948
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Indian Companies Act
Indian Penal Code
|
Tax Law
Company Law
Criminal Law
|
Electricity
|
Good
|
|
8.
|
K.N.K Iyengar V. Vijaya Bank
And Others
|
2000
|
Karnatka High Court
|
LAWS(KAR)-2000-1-94
|
Section 2 of the Transfer Property Act, and Section 3(26), Section 4 of General Clauses Act. Provision of Expl. 1 to Section 3.4
|
Property Law.
Statute Law
|
Oil Machinery
|
Movable Property
|
|
9.
|
R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma
|
2000
|
Supreme Court of India
|
(2000)7 SCC 264
|
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
The Sale of Goods Act, 1930
|
Contract law
|
Legal files
|
Goods
|
|
10.
|
U. P. Coop Cane Unions Federation v. West U.P. Sugar Mills Association
|
2004
|
Supreme Court of India
|
(2004) 5 SCC 430
|
The Sale of Goods Act, 1930
|
Sale of Goods
|
Sugarcane
|
Goods
|
|
11.
|
Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh
|
2005
|
Supreme Court of India
|
AIR 2005 SC 371
|
The Sale of Goods Act, 1930
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957
Copyright Act, 1957
General Sales Tax Act, 1957
The Supply of Goods and Services Act, 1982
the Finance Act 1975
|
Sales of Goods
Intellectual Property Law
Statue Law
Common Law
|
Intellectual property contained in floppies, disks or CD- ROMs
|
Goods
|
|
12.
|
State of AP v. Kone Elevators
|
2005
|
Supreme Court of India
|
(2005) 3 SCC 389
|
Andhra Pradesh Sales Act, 1957
|
Sales Tax
Contract Law
|
Elevators
|
Goods
|
|
13.
|
Sunrise Associates v Govt. of NCT Delhi
|
2006
|
Supreme Court of India
|
AIR 2006 SC 1909
|
The Sale of Goods Act, 1930
Constitution of India
|
Sales Tax
Sale of Goods
|
Lottery Ticket
|
Immovable property
|
|
14.
|
Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad v. Solid and Correct Engineering works and Others.
|
2010
|
Supreme Court of India
|
(2010) 5 SCC 122
|
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985,
General Clauses Act, 1897,
Central Excise Act, 1944,
Transfer of Property Act
|
Property Law
Statute Law.
|
Asphalt Drum/ Hot mix Plants
|
Movable property
|
|
15.
|
Standard Chartered Bank V.
Andhra Bank Financial Service Ltd.
|
2015
|
Supreme Court of India
|
SC766: (2015) 193
|
Limitation Act, 1963- Art 91(a), General Clause Act,1897- S 3 (36), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Evidence Act,1872.
|
Statute Law
Property Law
Tort Law
|
Suit Bonds
|
Movable Property
|
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books Referred
- P. RAMNATHA AIYAR, LAW OF SALE OF GOODS (Srinivas Gupta ed., Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2010).
- POLLOCK & MULLA, THE SALE OF GOODS ACT (Satish J. Shah ed., Lexis Nexis 2011).
- BENJAMIN, SALE OF GOODS (M. Bridge et al. eds., 8th ed. 2010).
- BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (6th ed. 1991)
Articles Referred
- Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary, Meaning of “goods” in the English Dictionary, CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY (Nov. 3, 2018, 4:00 PM), https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/goods.
- Sivadas Chettoor, Actionable Claims Under GST, CA CLUB INDIA (Nov. 3, 2018, 5:30 PM), https://www.caclubindia.com/articles/actionable-claims-under-gst-29682.asp.
- Law Commission of India, Eighth Report on the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (1958)
- Atlas Industries, What is an Asphalt Plant?, ATLAS INDUSTRIES (Nov. 3, 2018, 10:31 PM), https://www.atlasindustries.in/blog/what-is-an-asphalt-plant/
Neerja Gurnani, “Goods” under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, LAWOCTOPUS (Nov. 3, 2018, 1:00 PM), https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/goods-under-the-sale-of-goods-act-1930/#_ftnref28
[1] Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary, Meaning of “goods” in the English Dictionary, CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY (Nov. 3, 2018, 4:00 PM), https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/goods.
[2] P. RAMNATHA AIYAR, LAW OF SALE OF GOODS 15 (Srinivas Gupta ed., Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2010).
[3] Vishnu Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd.v. Common Tax Officer and Ors., 1978 AIR 449, 1978 SCR (2) 433.
[4] AIR 2005 SC 371
[5] POLLOCK & MULLA, THE SALE OF GOODS ACT 44(Satish J. Shah ed., Lexis Nexis 2011).
[6] ILR 46 Bom 489
[7] P. RAMNATHA AIYAR, LAW OF SALE OF GOODS 15 (Srinivas Gupta ed., Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2010).
[8] State of AP v. Kone Elavators, [2005] 140 STC 22
[9] Sivadas Chettoor, Actionable Claims Under GST, CA CLUB INDIA (Nov. 3, 2018, 5:30 PM), https://www.caclubindia.com/articles/actionable-claims-under-gst-29682.asp.
[10] Ibid.
[11] (1899) 2 QB 111: 68 LJBQ 657: 80 LT 693
[12] 25 Bom LR 414: AIR 1923 Bom 372
[13]1974 AIR 1728, 1975 SCR (1) 534
[14] AIR 1950 Nag 89: (1950) NLJ 157
[15] P. RAMNATHA AIYAR, LAW OF SALE OF GOODS 16 (Srinivas Gupta ed., Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2010).
[16] BENJAMIN, SALE OF GOODS 71(M. Bridge et al. eds., 8th ed. 2010).
[17] 1970 AIR 732, 1969 SCR (2) 939
[18] 1989 (42) ELT 552 Ori
[19] Law Commission of India, Eighth Report on the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (1958)
[20]
[21] BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 947 (6th ed. 1991)
[22] 1986 AIR 63
[23] AIR 2006 SC 1909
[24] Atlas Industries, What is an Asphalt Plant?, ATLAS INDUSTRIES (Nov. 3, 2018, 10:31 PM), https://www.atlasindustries.in/blog/what-is-an-asphalt-plant/
[25] (2010) 5 SCC 122
[26] (2004) 5 SCC 430
[27] Section 148 of The Indian Contract Act,1872
[28] Investopedia, Lien, INVESTOPEDIA (Nov. 3, 2018, 6:43 PM), https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lien.asp
[29] (2000) 7 SCC 264
[30] P. RAMNATHA AIYAR, LAW OF SALE OF GOODS 17 (Srinivas Gupta ed., Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2010).
