TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals dismissed: composite contract for on-board collection and replacement of first-class bed linen upheld; limitation plea unargued</h1> SC upheld the factual finding that the contract constituted a composite on-board service of collecting used first-class bed linen at stations and ... Classification of service - work entrusted to the appellant is only of washing the bed linen used in the first class Railways compartments - time limitation - HELD THAT:- After perusing the contracts, a finding of fact has been recorded that what was rendered was a composite on-board service to the passengers of collecting the used linen at a Railway station and replacing the same with the washed linen - There is no reason to interfere with the finding of fact based on the material on record. Secondly, the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the issue of bar of limitation was raised before the Tribunal. However, it is found that in Paragraph 5 of the impugned Judgment, the Tribunal has meticulously recorded the submissions made across the Bar which do not include the plea of limitation. There is no reason to interfere in these Appeals. The same are, accordingly, dismissed. Concurrent findings of fact upheld that the nature of services contracted was not mere laundering but a composite on-board passenger service. Although the appellant contended the engagement involved only 'washing the bed linen used in the first class Railways compartments,' the contracts and record support the Tribunal's finding that 'what was rendered was a composite on-board service to the passengers of collecting the used linen at a Railway station and replacing the same with the washed linen.' The Court found no reason to interfere with that factual conclusion. The appellant's contention on the bar of limitation was not entertained by the Tribunal; Paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment records that the plea of limitation 'do[es] not' appear among the submissions made across the Bar. Given these conclusions, the appeals were dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
