Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 463 views

    Kailash Sharma Vs Kerala Municipal Corporation and Others

    Uploaded by

    Lakkaraju Ashok Kumar
    The appellant company sold fogging machines to the respondent corporation to kill mosquitoes. Payment was due within a week of delivery. The respondent did not pay on time and used the machines for 6 months before complaining they were defective. The respondent then intended to return the machines without payment. The court found the respondent liable to pay, as using the machines for an extended period constituted acceptance. The sale agreement required payment within a week, and respondents could not revoke the transaction after three years. The court concluded respondents were legally obligated to pay for the machines as they could not return them after use and avoid the transaction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Kailash Sharma Vs Kerala Municipal Corporation and Others

    Uploaded by

    Lakkaraju Ashok Kumar
    463 views2 pages
    The appellant company sold fogging machines to the respondent corporation to kill mosquitoes. Payment was due within a week of delivery. The respondent did not pay on time and used the machines for 6 months before complaining they were defective. The respondent then intended to return the machines without payment. The court found the respondent liable to pay, as using the machines for an extended period constituted acceptance. The sale agreement required payment within a week, and respondents could not revoke the transaction after three years. The court concluded respondents were legally obligated to pay for the machines as they could not return them after use and avoid the transaction.

    Original Description:

    Contracts

    Original Title

    Kailash Sharma vs Kerala Municipal Corporation and Others

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellant company sold fogging machines to the respondent corporation to kill mosquitoes. Payment was due within a week of delivery. The respondent did not pay on time and used the machines for 6 months before complaining they were defective. The respondent then intended to return the machines without payment. The court found the respondent liable to pay, as using the machines for an extended period constituted acceptance. The sale agreement required payment within a week, and respondents could not revoke the transaction after three years. The court concluded respondents were legally obligated to pay for the machines as they could not return them after use and avoid the transaction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    463 views2 pages

    Kailash Sharma Vs Kerala Municipal Corporation and Others

    Uploaded by

    Lakkaraju Ashok Kumar
    The appellant company sold fogging machines to the respondent corporation to kill mosquitoes. Payment was due within a week of delivery. The respondent did not pay on time and used the machines for 6 months before complaining they were defective. The respondent then intended to return the machines without payment. The court found the respondent liable to pay, as using the machines for an extended period constituted acceptance. The sale agreement required payment within a week, and respondents could not revoke the transaction after three years. The court concluded respondents were legally obligated to pay for the machines as they could not return them after use and avoid the transaction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    KAILASH SHARMA VS KERALA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS

    Facts regarding this case:


    The Appellant-Company sold a certain number of fogging machines (used for killing
    mosquitoes) to the Respondent-Corporation for which the payment had to be made within one
    week of delivery. The Respondents did not pay within one week. The Respondent did not
    communicate with the appellants w.r.t the payment afterwards too. After 6 months of using the
    machine, the Respondents communicated with the appellants, but only to complain about the
    fogging machines inefficiency. They said that the machines were defective. Next, the
    Respondents intended to return the machines. The Appellants have filed this suit to recover the
    payment of machines from the respondents. This Judgement is given after three year of the
    delivery of goods.
    Issues raised in this context:
    Issue: Whether the Respondents are liable to pay for the machines (liable to pay if repudiation of
    transaction not allowed)

    Case Analysis:
    As per section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, the demonstration of getting the machine, after
    showing, utilizing it and holding it for quite a while sums to substantial acknowledgment. For
    this situation, the Respondents have acknowledged the machines.
    The Court for this situation talked about Section 32 of the Act (installment and conveyance are
    simultaneous conditions) and noticed that the law gives that installment and conveyance are
    simultaneous yet that is liable to an understanding generally. Here the understanding was for
    installment inside one week of conveyance. Besides, in the present case, three years are over.
    Section 13 (2) of the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930, plainly expresses that where there is a
    guarantee then, best case scenario the buyer can raise a case for harm however can't revoke the
    exchange itself as is being tried to be finished by the Corporation. This segment was perused
    with Section 59 of the Act. Section 59 says that a purchaser is not by reason of a rupture of
    guarantee (by the dealer) qualified for reject the merchandise. He may sue for harms or for break
    of guarantee. Here as well, the Respondents, subsequent to utilizing the machines for quite a
    while, can't just give back the machines to the appellants without installment for the machines.
    The court in the long run held that the Respondent-Corporation is at issue in law for the noninstallment. The certainties are only an affection to withhold the installment.

    Conclusion: Respondents were held to be at risk to pay for the misting machines as they couldn't
    truly give back the machines after use/renounce the exchange.
    Judgment:
    In this way, all in all the Corporation is at flaw in law in not making the installment. The stand
    of the Corporation is plainly discretionary and is not economical in law. The truths don't bolster
    the respondents. They are all falsification of a reason to with-hold installment. Hence, I have no
    delay in coordinating that the Corporation is bound by the understanding propounded without
    anyone else's input and bound by the terms thereof. It was will undoubtedly make installment
    inside one week in the month of August, 2005 itself and not having done as such, they have
    neglected to keep the terms of understanding set up without anyone else's input. They are hence
    at risk to be coordinated to keep the terms and thus to make due installment forthwith. In the
    event that installments circular segment made inside a time of one month from the date of
    creation of a duplicate of this request before the Municipal Commissioner, Patna, then the
    solicitor would give full due release in such manner however on the off chance that installments
    are not made inside one month then installments would be subject to be made alongside
    enthusiasm at the rate of 12% for each annum from the date installments are expected till the
    installments are made. With the above perception and bearing, this writ appeal stands permitted.

    You might also like