{"id":322489,"date":"2024-05-19T11:00:40","date_gmt":"2024-05-19T05:30:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=322489"},"modified":"2024-05-19T11:04:52","modified_gmt":"2024-05-19T05:34:52","slug":"when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/","title":{"rendered":"Never Reported Judgment| When Supreme Court examined the standard of care required on bailee\u2019s part for bailed goods [(1953) 1 SCC 446]"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> Appeal was filed by the appellant against the decree dated 30-03-1949, passed by the Bombay High Court (‘the High Court’). Appellant sought compensation from the respondent-bailee for the loss and destruction through negligence of goods bailed. The three-judges Bench of M.C. Mahajan, Vivian Bose*<\/span> and B. Jagannadhadas, JJ., opined that it was evident from these that respondent knew from the start that drums of acetic acid require special care in storing. Further, it was admitted fact the drums were left where they were without any further precautions and appellant was not even informed because respondent’s witness stated that he did not consider it either necessary “or advisable” to do so.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court opined that it was clear that no man of ordinary prudence would have behaved like this with his own goods. Further, if the case was the other way round, of course the respondent would not have behaved like this and left the goods to rot while the parties settled the question of title. Therefore, respondent’s negligence was clear on the face of it. Thus, the Court set aside the decree passed by the High Court and restored the Trial Court’s decree.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

In the present case, the suit as originally framed was for the price of eighty-two drums of acetic acid which appellant stated he had sold to respondent. Respondent admitted receipt of the goods but denied that it had purchased them. Respondent contended that the goods were bailed, and that appellant was responsible for their destruction, and further put in a counterclaim for rent up to the date of its claim, and even beyond, asserting thereby that the bailment was still in being. Respondent also claimed a certain sum which the Bombay Port Trust demanded from respondent as fine on the ground that the goods were stored on Port Trust property. After this, appellant sought leave to amend his plaint and, in the alternative, sought compensation from respondent. Since, respondent did not oppose, appellant was permitted to amend the plaint. During trial, appellant abandoned his original case and confined himself to the alternative claim.<\/p>\n

It was stated that respondent undertook to store the drums in its godown and made an express stipulation that the drums should be in sound condition and properly packed and drew attention to the danger of faulty packing in the case of goods of this nature. However, respondent stored the goods in a place which was stored by a third party. Further, when respondent’s men went to remove the drums, or samples of them for the auction, they discovered that seventy of the eighty-two drums were on the verge of bursting and might burst any day. This discovery was made on 1st<\/span> September and appellants were not told until 4th<\/span> September.<\/p>\n

The Trial Court decided in favour of appellant, whereas the High Court decided against appellant. Thus, appellant filed the present appeal. The Supreme Court confined its attention to appellant’s rights as bailor and respondent’s rights and liabilities as bailee.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court opined that because of concurrent findings and conduct of parties, it must be accepted that the drums were in sound condition and properly packed when they were delivered into the respondent’s custody on 28-11-1947. It was also beyond dispute that because of the action of sun, wind and weather, aided by the monsoon, seventy-eight of the eighty-two drums became useless by 4-10-1948. The only question was whether respondent had in this interval exercised the standard of care laid upon bailees by Section 151<\/a> of the Contract Act, 1872<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court opined that on the question of negligence it was not necessary to go beyond the respondent’s witnesses and letters. It was evident from these that respondent knew from the start that drums of acetic acid require special care in storing. The Supreme Court noted that respondent’s witness expressly told the Chairman of the defendant’s Board of Directors before the goods were received, that acid in drums was dangerous to store. It was also stated in the respondent’s letter that the drums should be “absolutely in sound packing and not leaking anywhere”. Respondent also stated that the drums were made of wood and required protection against the rain. The Supreme Court opined that it was evident from this that storage on damp ground would be negligent storing, particularly in the rains.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court opined that it was admitted fact the drums were left where they were without any further precautions and appellant was not even informed because respondent’s witness stated that he did not consider it either necessary “or advisable” to do so. The Supreme Court opined that the High Court considered that respondent had discharged its duty when it informed appellant on 06-01-1948, that instead of storing the goods in its godown it had stored them in the curtilage of the godown. However, that was not enough. The Supreme Court opined that given proper protection as, for example, placing the drums on raised platforms so that the wet from the ground could not reach them, with temporary roof on top to carry off the water, storage in the curtilage would probably have been quite safe.<\/p>\n

Therefore, even if appellant’s assented to this change of storage of the goods in curtilage of the godown instead of godown, it did not help respondent because appellant would be entitled to assume that the respondent as bailee would take redoubled precautions when storing the goods outside the godown, especially as respondent knew that they were liable to rapid and dangerous deterioration. The Supreme Court opined that it was clear that no man of ordinary prudence would have behaved like this with his own goods. Further, if the case was the other way round, of course the respondent would not have behaved like this and left the goods to rot while the parties settled the question of title. Therefore, respondent’s negligence was clear on the face of it.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court set aside the decree passed by the High Court and restored the Trial Court’s decree.<\/p>\n

[Dayalji Girdhar v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd., (1953) 1 SCC 446<\/a>, decided on 18-03-1953<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Note: Section 151<\/a> of Contract Act, 1872<\/a><\/p>\n

Bailment is a term which denotes delivery of goods or personal property by one person to another, but the ownership remains unchanged. Bailee is entrusted with several duties, and foremost is that he must take care of the goods bailed reasonably. Section 151<\/a> of the Contract Act, 1872<\/a> specifies the care the bailee would take. It states that in all cases of bailment, bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed.<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by- Justice Vivian Bose<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Appellant:<\/span> C.K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India (J.B. Dadachanji, Advocate, with him);<\/p>\n

For the Respondent<\/span>: C.R Pattabhiraman and R. Ganpathy Iyer, Advocates.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on Section 151 of Contract Act,1872.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67520,"featured_media":322493,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,58675],"tags":[68856,35213,68858,68854,3065,58925,68857,68855,5363],"class_list":["post-322489","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-scc-never-reported-judgments-supreme-court","tag-bailed-goods","tag-bailee","tag-bailees-rights","tag-bailor","tag-negligence","tag-never-reported-judgment","tag-section-151-of-contract-act","tag-standard-of-care","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNever Reported Judgment| When Supreme Court examined the standard of care required on bailee\u2019s part | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court opined that respondent\u2019s negligence was clear on the face of it and accordingly, set aside the decree passed by the High Court and restored the Trial Court\u2019s decree.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgment| When Supreme Court examined the standard of care required on bailee\u2019s part for bailed goods [(1953) 1 SCC 446]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court opined that respondent\u2019s negligence was clear on the face of it and accordingly, set aside the decree passed by the High Court and restored the Trial Court\u2019s decree.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-05-19T05:30:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-05-19T05:34:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/standard-of-care-required-on-the-part-of-bailee.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgment| When Supreme Court examined the standard of care required on bailee\u2019s part for bailed goods [(1953) 1 SCC 446]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/\",\"name\":\"Never Reported Judgment| When Supreme Court examined the standard of care required on bailee\u2019s part | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/standard-of-care-required-on-the-part-of-bailee.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-05-19T05:30:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-05-19T05:34:52+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court opined that respondent\u2019s negligence was clear on the face of it and accordingly, set aside the decree passed by the High Court and restored the Trial Court\u2019s decree.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/standard-of-care-required-on-the-part-of-bailee.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/standard-of-care-required-on-the-part-of-bailee.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"standard of care required on the part of bailee\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Never Reported Judgment| When Supreme Court examined the standard of care required on bailee\u2019s part for bailed goods [(1953) 1 SCC 446]\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\",\"name\":\"Arushi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arushi\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/arushi\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Never Reported Judgment| When Supreme Court examined the standard of care required on bailee\u2019s part | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court opined that respondent\u2019s negligence was clear on the face of it and accordingly, set aside the decree passed by the High Court and restored the Trial Court\u2019s decree.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Never Reported Judgment| When Supreme Court examined the standard of care required on bailee\u2019s part for bailed goods [(1953) 1 SCC 446]","og_description":"Supreme Court opined that respondent\u2019s negligence was clear on the face of it and accordingly, set aside the decree passed by the High Court and restored the Trial Court\u2019s decree.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-05-19T05:30:40+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-05-19T05:34:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/standard-of-care-required-on-the-part-of-bailee.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arushi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Never Reported Judgment| When Supreme Court examined the standard of care required on bailee\u2019s part for bailed goods [(1953) 1 SCC 446]","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arushi","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/","name":"Never Reported Judgment| When Supreme Court examined the standard of care required on bailee\u2019s part | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/standard-of-care-required-on-the-part-of-bailee.webp","datePublished":"2024-05-19T05:30:40+00:00","dateModified":"2024-05-19T05:34:52+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76"},"description":"Supreme Court opined that respondent\u2019s negligence was clear on the face of it and accordingly, set aside the decree passed by the High Court and restored the Trial Court\u2019s decree.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/standard-of-care-required-on-the-part-of-bailee.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/standard-of-care-required-on-the-part-of-bailee.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"standard of care required on the part of bailee"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/19\/when-sc-examined-the-standard-of-care-required-on-bailees-part-of-bailed-goods-scctimes\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Never Reported Judgment| When Supreme Court examined the standard of care required on bailee\u2019s part for bailed goods [(1953) 1 SCC 446]"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76","name":"Arushi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arushi"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/arushi\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/standard-of-care-required-on-the-part-of-bailee.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":214316,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/04\/jhar-hc-responsibility-of-railways-administration-after-termination-of-transit-under-railways-act-1989-compensation-for-damage-of-goods-granted\/","url_meta":{"origin":322489,"position":0},"title":"Jhar HC | Responsibility of Railways administration after termination of transit, under Railways Act, 1989: Compensation for damage of goods granted","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 4, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Jharkhand High Court: The Bench of Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. allowed an appeal and set aside the order passed by Tribunal for disallowing the claim petition of the said appellant against the respondent Railways. The appellant contented to the Tribunal that delivery of goods was not within the stipulated time\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":307015,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/12\/even-a-person-merely-acting-as-sales-broker-will-be-liable-for-dishonestly-receiving-stolen-property-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":322489,"position":1},"title":"Never Reported Judgment | Liability for dishonestly receiving stolen property extends even to those merely acting as sales brokers: SC [(1952) 2 SCC 140]","author":"Simranjeet","date":"November 12, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThis report covers the Supreme Court\u2019s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on dishonestly receiving stolen property.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"stolen property","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/stolen-property.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/stolen-property.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/stolen-property.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/stolen-property.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":318308,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/24\/sc-damages-for-non-delivery-of-goods-not-maintainable-in-absence-of-contract-of-sale-between-parties-scctimes\/","url_meta":{"origin":322489,"position":2},"title":"Never Reported Judgment| Damages for non-delivery of purchased goods not maintainable in absence of contract of sale between parties [(1953) 1 SCC 157]","author":"Arushi","date":"March 24, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on damages for non-delivery of goods.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"damages for non-delivery of goods in absence of contract of sale","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/damages-for-non-delivery-of-goods-in-absence-of-contract-of-sale.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/damages-for-non-delivery-of-goods-in-absence-of-contract-of-sale.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/damages-for-non-delivery-of-goods-in-absence-of-contract-of-sale.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/damages-for-non-delivery-of-goods-in-absence-of-contract-of-sale.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":310432,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/31\/sc-compromise-between-parties-is-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-a-suit-for-malicious-prosecution-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":322489,"position":3},"title":"Never Reported Judgment| Compromise between parties is not termination of proceedings in a suit for malicious prosecution [(1952) 2 SCC 446]","author":"Editor","date":"December 31, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on malicious prosecution.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"compromise not termination of proceedings in malicious prosecution","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/compromise-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-malicious-prosecution.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/compromise-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-malicious-prosecution.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/compromise-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-malicious-prosecution.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/compromise-not-termination-of-proceedings-in-malicious-prosecution.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324489,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/sc-never-reported-judgment-on-essentiality-of-mens-rea\/","url_meta":{"origin":322489,"position":4},"title":"Never Reported Judgment | Mere mentioning of quota holder\u2019s wrong name in a form\u2019s delivery column does not lead to inference of bad faith [(1953) 1 SCC 600]","author":"Arushi","date":"June 16, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on essentiality of mens rea.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"mens rea bad faith","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/mens-rea-bad-faith.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/mens-rea-bad-faith.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/mens-rea-bad-faith.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/mens-rea-bad-faith.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":300175,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/27\/sc-price-paid-less-than-market-value-not-necessarily-a-sham-transaction-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":322489,"position":5},"title":"Never Reported Judgment| Price paid less than market value in transfer of property cannot convert a genuine transaction into a sham one [(1952) 1 SCC 127]","author":"Editor","date":"August 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThis report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on Transfer of Property Act, 1882.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"transfer of property act genuine transaction sham transaction","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/transfer-of-property-act-genuine-transaction-sham-transaction.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/transfer-of-property-act-genuine-transaction-sham-transaction.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/transfer-of-property-act-genuine-transaction-sham-transaction.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/transfer-of-property-act-genuine-transaction-sham-transaction.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/322489","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67520"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=322489"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/322489\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/322493"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=322489"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=322489"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=322489"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}