Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (1.09 seconds)The Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
The Standards Of Weights And Measures Act, 1976
State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs M/S. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd on 6 March, 2002
(xxvii) AHS was to allow representative of HPCL and the party,
to whom the products are being sent, to travel with him.
20 All these indicate that the effective control and possession was
always with AHS. What was being provided to HPCL was only a
transportation service on hire. The Tribunal instead of applying the law as
laid down by the judgments in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
(Supra), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Supra), International Travel House
Ltd. (Supra) and M/s. General Cranes (Supra) etc., has read the agreement
Gauri Gaekwad
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 01:46:21 :::
35/38 211.MVXA-8-2015-2.doc
in bits and pieces and referred to only certain clauses which were in place
to ensure commitment for uninterrupted efficient transportation service.
The Tribunal has referred to the clauses which provides that the tankers are
not under agreement with any other party, AHS not to assign right in the
tankers or the tankers should not be used for products other than oil of
HPCL, HPCL has right to change the loading location etc. The Tribunal has
failed to appreciate that these clauses referred to and provided for in the
agreement with HPCL were only to ensure uninterrupted transportation
services by AHS to HPCL. The right to use of tankers does not get
transferred because of these clauses. The possession and effective control
was always with AHS and HPCL had no right to direct AHS for any other
work or any other area than agreed. There is no provision that HPCL could
even sublet. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the services for the
tankers were provided with man power and road tax, insurance, permit,
salary and wages of staff, cost of fuel, lubricants, tyres, repair etc., were
being paid by AHS. The agreement entered into between AHS and HPCL
shows that not only possession but also effective control of the tankers
remained with AHS and did not get transferred to HPCL. The agreement
demonstrated that the intention of the parties was that AHS would carry
the petroleum and petroleum products from one place to another and such
carriage would ordinarily be in those vehicles, which had been accepted by
HPCL, but, in unavoidable circumstances, AHS may provide for alternative
Gauri Gaekwad
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 01:46:21 :::
36/38 211.MVXA-8-2015-2.doc
tankers. Thus, when the custody and effective control of the vehicles
remained with AHS, it would be incorrect to contend that there was
transfer of the right to use the vehicles. Further AHS has to bear the entire
operational cost of the vehicle which included salary and other emoluments
of the driver and cleaner, cost of fuel and lubricating oil, maintenance of
vehicles, payment of road tax, insurance etc. It was also the responsibility of
AHS to pay such fines as might be imposed for non compliance of any of the
rules, which might be applicable to the carriage of petroleum and
petroleum products by the tankers. The requirement that the tankers must
conform to the design and fittings as might be specified by HPCL or that
HPCL had right to change the loading station or tankers cannot be used for
carrying other products than oil of HPCL could not be stretched to mean
that the right to use the tankers would stand vested in HPCL and/or the
effective custody and control of tankers would stand transferred to HPCL
because of the fact that petroleum and petroleum products, being highly
inflammable substances could be carried safely and securely only in vehicles
with specified designs and fittings. AHS was also liable for contamination of
the goods due to negligence of its staff and also if there was short delivery
of substance at the destinations. AHS would be entitled to receive payment
provided it operated the tankers in accordance with the requirement of
HPCL as stipulated in the agreement on per KM basis. These provisions
were demonstrative of the fact that AHS retained the possession and
Gauri Gaekwad
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 01:46:21 :::
37/38 211.MVXA-8-2015-2.doc
effective control of tankers. Merely because of the fact that certain clauses
were provided in the agreement in view of the nature of the cargo to be
carried and to ensure that the transportation of their products do not get
disrupted, it did not necessarily mean that the right to use the tankers stood
transferred in favour of HPCL by AHS, more so, when the agreement
provided for substitution of the vehicles.