Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Patnaik & Company vs State Of Orissa on 19 January, 1965

M.G. Bros. vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, ... on 2 July, 1968

10. So, we now proceed to discuss the only other argument maintained before us that there is no similarity between the stipulations contained in the agreement which was discussed in Patnaik's case and Mckenzies' case ([1965] 16 S.T.C. 518 (S.C.)), and those in the agreement with which we are concerned in this case. When we proceed to consider the stipulations in the agreement before us, we observe that the agreement is "for the construction of the mofussil city type of buses for the Mysore Government". That was what was stated in clause 2 of the preamble to the agreement. In clause 1 the petitioner was described as a contractor, and it states that the contractor had agreed "to perform the work" described in the schedule to the agreement. In clause 7 it was stated that if the petitioner did not perform the "work" satisfactorily, the Government would have the liberty to get the "work" done by someone else. There was also a reference in that clause to the consequence of "incomplete workmanship" on the part of the petitioner Clause 9 authorised the General Manager of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department to inspect the work performed by the petitioner whenever he thought it necessary to do so and to issue instructions to the petitioner from time to time. Clause 10 referred to the work to be done by the petitioner as "the construction of the body", and clause 11 provided for the payment of the amounts specified in "the bill of costs" tendered by the petitioner against the "delivery of the complete bus". Clause 13 provided that the decision of the General Manager of the Department should be final with respect "to quality of workmanship, etc."
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1