Case Details

Citation(s)
1961 SLG 308 1961 SLD 308 1961 PLD 321
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 20-D of 1960, decided on 20th April 1961.
A. R. CORNELIUS C.J., S. A. RAHMAN, B. Z. KAIKAUS AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
A. F. M Mesbah-ud-Din Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Matin Khan Chowdhury Attorney for Appellant. S. C. Basu Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Nandalal Das Attorney for
Respondent.

SHEWRAM DAS AGARWAL--Appellant

VS

AROBINDA PODDER--Respondent

Law:

Section:

(a) Special leave to appeal to Supreme Court----- --Granted to examine question of law "of general and substantial importance" regarding application of appropriate Article of Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 160. (b) Hire-purchase------ ---Essential term of contract-Hirer's right to terminate contract at pleasure and not being bound to pay value of goods-Contract giving hirer "right to keep and use" certain apparatus "till payment of full value of price settled", subject to other conditions of contract-Conferment of such "right" on hirer, held, "highly unusual"-Contract, held, not one of hire-purchase­ Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930), S. 20 -Property in goods passing to vendee upon sale though payment of price postponed-Principle applied to contract having terms retaining ownership in vendor. Where an alleged contract of hire-purchase did not, provide for the distinguishing feature of such a contract, viz. that the hirer has a right to terminate the contract for hire at his pleasure, and is not bound to pay the value of the goods, but, on the other hand provided that hirer would have the right to keep arid use certain apparatus till the payment of the fall value of the price settled subject only to certain other terms and conditions: Held, that the conferment of such a right in these terms was highly unusual. The purpose behind the use of these words was not wholly clear, but it was certainly opposed to any suggestion that the "hire-purchaser" was entitled to return the property, in the manner of a true hire-purchaser at law. Further indications to the contrary were found in the two provisions regarding the right of the "hire-purchaser" to receive any balance over the amount due to the owner which might be left upon a forced sale by the owner under the terms of the agreement. If property in goods continued to vest in the owner, there could be no question of the "hire-purchaser" having a right to any part of the sale proceeds. Moreover, the apparatus in question being movable property, the ordinary presumption would be that property in the apparatus passed to the alleged "hire-purchaser" when the contract was made it being…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492