Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

As could be seen from the clauses of the Agreement, the principal object is to impart computer education to students in various schools. For the said purpose, the petitioner installs computers (sets up a computer centre) in each school, engages trained faculty who teach the students about computers and how to use the same. The petitioner is also required to provide the operational manual, text books and training material free of cost. After the expiry of the contract period of five years the petitioner is bound to transfer to the department the equipment and software installed at each school without any consideration. So far as the terms of payment are concerned, the total fee per school will be paid to the petitioner in ten (10) equal half-yearly instalments as specified in clause 7.1 of the agreement.

It is sought to be explained by the learned counsel that the fact that the computers and software installed remained the property of the petitioner till the expiry of the contract and even the teaching faculty, computers and software were provided by the petitioner himself makes it clear that there is no transfer of goods at any stage of the activity executed under the contract.

The above contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, according to us, have no merit in the light of the settled legal position noticed above. In fact, in LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITEDS case (5 supra) an identical contention that the substance and dominant intention of the contract has to be looked into was negatived observing as under: