MOULANA TRADERS Vs. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF HIGH COURT MADRAS AS THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR IN SOUTH INDIA VISCOSE INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant claims to be the seller of the goods concerned in this case to the company in liquidation. He is before this Court for a direction to the official liquidator for permission to remove/lift the pulp wood to an extent of 16,000 metric tons lying in the premises of the company in liquidation after giving an appropriate direction in that regard to the official liquidator. THEre is no dispute that the applicant supplied a large volume of pulp wood to the company in liquidation and stating that whatever quantity of pulp wood is now left in the company premises belongs to him, he wants to take it back. THE point involved in this case is whether the property in the goods passed to the buyer or not " If it had passed to the buyer, then the property belongs to the company in liquidation and everyone, including the applicant, should stand in the queue and make a claim. On the other hand, if the property in the goods had not passed to the buyer, then the title to the same continues to vest with the applicant/seller and therefore he is entitled to take it back.

(2.) WHEN does the property in the goods pass between a seller and a buyer, can be gathered from the terms of the sale itself. If the terms of the sale is not clear, then the intention of the parties would play a large role. Since the transaction in question is covered by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, the Court has to look into Chapter III of the said Act. Here is a case of sale of specific/ascertained goods. Under Section 19 (1) of the Sale of Goods Act, the property in the goods passes to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred. Under sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Act, the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case may be referred to in ascertaining the intention of the parties. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 states that unless a different intention appears, Sections 20-24 would govern the situation in ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer.

(3.) FOR all the reasons stated above, I have no difficulty at all in holding that the property in the goods had passed to the buyer; therefore it becomes the property of the company in liquidation and the applicant cannot legally lay his claim to take back the goods. Therefore the application stands dismissed. .