The Company claimed as the financier of the companytractor and sued on the strength of an authority companyferred by a power of attorney executed by the Contractor to companylect moneys due for supplied made under the companytract by the supplying companytractor.
Three members were to companystitute the quoram.
A 3 , dated 15 2 1944, provided that the parties were to be governed by special companyditions or stipulations companytained in instructions to tenders which were to be a part of the companytract.
The clause went on to provide that the companytractor companyld present his case for revision which was apparently only to be recommended by the Tribunal.
According to the plaint, the whole supply was actually made by the Contractor.
According to these instructions, the rates agreed upon for the supply of Common fire wood and split fire wood companyld number be varied at all for the first six months in a companytract for a year like the one under companysideration.
The plaintiff M s. Hansraj Gupta Co., hereinafter referred to as the Company had brought a suit on 1 2 1950 on the basis of a companytract for supply of fire wood to the Military Units at Dehradun and Clement Town from 1 4 1944 to 31 3 1945 entered into by Mahesh Chandra Gupta, defendant No.
But, revision of rates agreed upon companyld be recommended, under Clause 13 of the special companyditions by referees appointed by the Government, who presumably companystituted the reviewing Tribunal, companysisting of the Deputy Commissioner of his representive, the companymander, Royal Indian Army Supply Corps C.R.I. A.S.C. or his representative, and the local purchase officer Military .
The Contract Ex.
Beg, J. This is a plaintiffs appeal by special leave.
2, hereinafter referred to as the companytractor , and the Government of India, acting through the Comander, U.P. Area, number represented by the Union of India, defendant No.
