Source: https://chambersofnitinchopra.wordpress.com/2015/09/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:22:16+00:00

Document:
The principle of law, thus is crystal clear. It is to be seen as to whether as to what point of time sale is effected, namely, whether it is on factory gate or at a later point of time, i.e., when the delivery of the goods is effected to the buyer at his premises. This aspect is to be seen in the light of the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act by applying the same to the facts of each case to determine as to when the ownership in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer. The charges which are to be added have put up to the stage of transfer of that ownership inasmuch as once the ownership in goods stands trabsferred to the buyer, any expenditure incurred thereafter has to be on buyer’s account and cannot be a component which would be included while ascertaining the valuation of the goods manufactured by the buyer. Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise v. Roofit Industries Ltd., (2015) 8 SCC 229.
In common parlance, the two words “type” and “form” are not of the same import. According to the Oxford Dictionary, whereas the meaning of the expression “types” is “kind, class, breed, group, family, genus”; the meaning of the word, “form”, is “visible shape or configuration of something”, or the “style, design and arrangement in an artistic work as different from its content”. Similarly, Macmillan Dictionary defines “type” as “a group of people or things with similar qualities or features that make them different from other groups” and “form” as “the particular way in which something appears or exists or a shape of someone or something”. Therefore, “types” are based on the broad nature of the item intended to be classified and in terms of “forms”, the distinguishable feature is the particular way in which the items exist. An example could be the item “wax”. The types of wax would include animal, vegetable, petroleum, mineral or synthetic wax whereas the form of wax could be candles, lubricant wax, sealing wax etx. State of Jharkand v. LA OPALA RG Ltd., (2014) 15 SCC 136.
In the case of Maya Devi v. Jagdish Prasad, 2007 (67) ALR 129, it was held that not only the physical cruelty which can be a ground for a divorce but the mental cruelty also constituted a good ground for divorce. In the case of Sadhana Srivastava v. Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, 2005 (61) ALR 268, it was held that making a false allegation against the husband of having illicit relationship and extra marital affairs by wife in her written statement constitute mental cruelty of such nature that husband cannot be reasonable asked to live with wife. In such case, the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce. Similar views have been expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jai Dayal v. Shakuntala Devi, AIR 2004 Del 31 in which it has been held that leveling of false allegation by one spouse about the other having alleged illicit relations with different persons outside wedlock amounted to mental cruelty. Rajesh Dwivedi v. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, 2015 (108) ALR 337.
In cases where there is no oral evidence adduced and documentary evidence is not proved or exhibited by witnesses, it cannot be read into evidence for proving guilt of the employee. It is for this reason that many unscrupulous employer/establishment/department fabricate documents for proving charge against innocent employee and punish him without proving the same, thus denying a reasonable opportunity to him to defend himself. Sita Ram v. State of U.P., 2015 (1) ESC 178.
“So, as and when recruitment takes place the cases of all the candidates including reserved candidates must be considered according to rules which would arise only when recruitment takes place. Take for instance an hypothetical case. A and B are eligible for consideration and were considered in 1980 for two vacancies and B was found suitable and was appointed to one vacancy in 1982. One more vacancy arose in 1983. In the year 1983, A, C and D were considered. A and D were promoted in 1984. The recruitment years are 1982 and 1984, and not 1980 when one vacancy existed or 1983 when two vacancies existed. So each year is not the year of recruitment. As and when recruitment takes place in a particular year, it would be the year of recruitment.
It is thus clear that the recruitment year is the year in which the recruitment takes place, but not each three successive years in which the vacancy exists. Raeesul Hasan v. State of U.P., (2015) 2 UPLBEC 1441 (FB).
The expression “ratification” means the making valid of an act already done. This principle is derived from the Latin term “ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur” meaning thereby “a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act.” It is for this reason; the ratification assumes an invalid act, which is retrospectively validated.
In Maharashtra State Mining Corporation v. Sunil, (2006) 5 SCC 96, it was held that ratification by definition means the making valid of an act already done. It assumes an invalid act which is retrospectively validated. National Institute of Technology v. Pannalal Choudhury, 2015 (3) ESC 377.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.