CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK LTD. vs UNITED INDUSTRIAL BANK LTD.

The Supreme Court interpreted 'consent' in Section 30(2) of the Indian Sale of Goods Act, clarifying it means 'agreeing on the same thing in the same sense' as per Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act, rather than 'free consent' under Section 14. The Court held that possession obtained by fraud does not negate consent unless the fraud is so severe that it nullifies consent entirely. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Calcutta High Court's judgment that the plaintiff bank did not acquire title against the defendant bank or the original seller due to the fraudulent possession by the buyer.