---

 GOODS UNDER SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930

---

1. Statutory Definition – Section 2(7)

“Goods means every kind of movable property other than actionable claims and money; and includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale.”

🔹 Exclusions:

• Actionable claims (like debts, insurance claims).
• Money (in circulation).

---

2. Classification of Goods

(A) Existing Goods – Section 6(1)

Goods owned or possessed by the seller at the time of the contract.

• Specific Goods (Sec. 2(14)) – Identified at the time of contract.

  • Case: Ward vs. Bignall (1967) – Ownership passes only when specific goods are identified.

• Ascertained Goods – Identified later, after the contract.

  • Case: Gopal Purshottam vs. Kasturi Rangan (1921 Madras HC) – Ownership passes only after ascertainment.

• Unascertained Goods – Not identified at the time of contract. Ownership transfers only when goods are ascertained.

---

(B) Future Goods – Section 2(6)

Goods to be manufactured, produced, or acquired by the seller after the contract.

• Not a sale, but an agreement to sell.
• Case: Jaswant Singh vs. Prakash Singh (1963 Punjab HC) – Sale of future crops is merely an agreement to sell.

---

(C) Contingent Goods – Section 6(2)

Goods the acquisition of which depends on an uncertain future event.

• Case: Nash vs. Inman (1908) – Sale depending on uncertain event is contingent; no sale until event happens.

---

3. Judicially Recognized “Goods”

Courts have widened the meaning of goods to include intangible property if they are movable, marketable, and transferable.

1. Electricity

   • Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. MP Electricity Board (1970 SC)
   • Judgment: Electricity is “goods” because it can be transmitted, transferred, delivered, stored, possessed, and has value.

2. Software

   • Tata Consultancy Services vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004 SC)
   • Judgment: Packaged (canned) software is goods as it is marketable and transferable.

3. Import Licenses (REP/Exim scrips)

   • Vikas Sales Corporation vs. CCT (1996 SC)
   • Judgment: Import licenses are goods since they are transferable and valuable.

4. Lottery Tickets

   • H. Anraj vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (1986 SC) – Lottery tickets = goods (transferable right).
   • Sunrise Associates vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2006 SC) – Overruled H. Anraj, held lottery tickets are actionable claims, not goods.

5. Shares

   • Chartered Bank vs. State of Bombay (1954 SC)
   • Judgment: Shares are “goods” under the Act until they are allotted; once allotted, they represent actionable claims.

6. Gas / Marketable Commodities

   • Union of India vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills (1963 SC)
   • Judgment: To qualify as goods, commodity must be movable and marketable.

---

4. What are NOT Goods?

• Money in circulation.

  • Case: Chartered Bank vs. State of Bombay (1954 SC) – Current coins are not goods; old coins/jewels may be goods.

• Actionable Claims – debts, insurance claims, lottery claims.

  • Sunrise Associates (2006 SC) – Lottery tickets are actionable claims, not goods.

 Judgments

• Goods must be movable.
• Goods must be marketable (capable of being bought/sold).
• Both tangible and intangible property may be goods (electricity, software, licenses).
• Ownership in goods (property) is distinct from possession.

---

6. Conclusion

The concept of “goods” under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 is very wide, covering all movable property (tangible or intangible), except money and actionable claims. Judicial interpretations have expanded it to include electricity, software, import licenses, and shares, ensuring the law remains relevant to modern commerce.

---

✨ Got it 👍 You want case laws on “Goods” under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 with detailed analysis and judgment principles (so you can directly use them in your LLB exam).

Here’s a comprehensive list of landmark cases 👇

---

📖 Important Case Laws on GOODS (Section 2(7), Sale of Goods Act, 1930)

---

1. Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. M.P. Electricity Board (1970 SC)

• Facts: The question arose whether electricity supplied to consumers is “goods” for sales tax purposes.
• Issue: Can electricity, being intangible and invisible, be classified as goods?
• Judgment: The Supreme Court held electricity is goods because it is movable, transferable, deliverable, and marketable.
• Principle: Goods are not limited to tangible property; even intangible things that can be transmitted and valued are goods.

---

2. Tata Consultancy Services vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004 SC)

• Facts: Question was whether computer software (packaged/canned) amounts to “goods” under sales tax law.
• Issue: Is software goods or merely intellectual property?
• Judgment: The Court held software is goods, whether tangible (CD/DVD) or intangible, if it is marketable, transferable, storable, and usable.
• Principle: Intangible items are goods if they can be bought, sold, and have utility.

---

3. Vikas Sales Corporation vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (1996 SC)

• Facts: Concerned with REP licenses/import entitlements — whether they are goods under law.
• Judgment: REP licenses are goods because they are transferable, valuable, and capable of being bought and sold.
• Principle: Even rights and benefits that can be transferred for consideration are goods.

---

4. H. Anraj vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (1986 SC)

• Facts: The issue was whether lottery tickets are goods for the purpose of sales tax.
• Judgment: Court held lottery tickets = goods, as they carry a transferable right to participate in a draw.
• Principle: Transferable rights attached to a ticket constitute goods.

---

5. Sunrise Associates vs. Government of NCT of Delhi (2006 SC)

• Facts: Reconsidered the issue from H. Anraj regarding lottery tickets.
• Judgment: Overruled H. Anraj. Held lottery tickets are NOT goods but actionable claims, since the only right they give is to claim a prize in the future.
• Principle: Actionable claims are specifically excluded from the definition of goods (Sec. 2(7)).

---

6. Chartered Bank vs. State of Bombay (1954 SC)

• Facts: Whether money and shares are goods under sales tax law.
• Judgment:
  • Money in circulation is not goods.
  • Shares are goods until they are allotted. Once allotted, they become actionable claims.
• Principle: Distinction between money in circulation (excluded) and shares as movable property (included).

---

7. Union of India vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills (1963 SC)

• Facts: Concerned with whether a by-product was “goods” for excise duty.
• Judgment: Court held that for an item to qualify as goods, it must be movable, marketable, and known in the market.
• Principle: Marketability is the test of goods.

---

8. Gopal Purshottam vs. Kasturi Rangan (1921 Madras HC)

• Facts: Contract for supply of unspecified goods.
• Judgment: Held that ownership in unascertained goods cannot pass until goods are specifically identified.
• Principle: For ownership transfer, goods must be ascertained.

---

9. Jaswant Singh vs. Prakash Singh (1963 Punjab HC)

• Facts: Contract for sale of future crops.
• Judgment: Held that a contract for future goods is only an agreement to sell, not a sale.
• Principle: Future goods cannot be sold at the time of contract; they can only be subject of agreement