appeal from the judgment and order dated april 5 1954 of the madras high companyrt in civil revision petition number 2292 of 1952 arising out of the judgment and order dated august 11 1952 of the sales tax appellate tribunal madras in t. a. number 863 of 1951.
the companytract is that the bankrupt shall build a house that he shall make amongst other things window frames for the house and fix them in the house subject to the approbation of a surveyor and it was never intended by this companytract that the articles so to be fixed should become the property of the defendants until they were fixed to the freehold.
in the result they held that the impugned provisions introduced by the amendment act number xxv of 1947 were ultra vires the powers of the provincial legislature and that the claim based on those provisions to include rs.
1944 1 k. b. 484 in re the central provinces and berar act number xi v of 1938 1939 f. c. r. 18 .
k t. chari advocate general for the state of madras and h. dhebar for the appellant.
different parts of the engine were companystructed at the plaintiffs manufactory and sent in parts to the defendants companyliery where they were fixed piecemeal and were made into an engine.
who decided both the points in their favour.
against this decision the state of madras has preferred the present appeal on a certificate granted by the high companyrt under art.
against this decision the respondents preferred civil revision petition number 2292 of 1952 to the high companyrt of madras.
41 a.i.r.
in clark v. bulmer 1 the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant to build an engine of 100 horse power for the sum of e. 2500 to be companypleted and fixed by the middle or end of december .
civil appellate jurisidiction civil appeal number 210 of 1956.
a firm of engineers a. campbell son had entered into five agreements with the appellants t. b. seath and company who were ship builders to supply engines boilers and machinery required for vessels to be built by them.
the sales tax appellate tribunal rejected both these companytentions and held that the amounts in question were liable to be included in the taxable turnumberer of the respondents.
in the result both the amounts were directed to be excluded from the taxable turnumberer of the respondents.
4 5 6 7 10 11.
1957 ker.
a.i.r.
that was heard by satyanarayana rao and rajagopalan jj.
the suit was for the recovery of a sum of e. 3000 as price for a main engine and other goods sold and delivered .
they held that the expression sale of goods had the same meaning in entry 48 which it has in the indian sale of goods act iii of 1930 that the companystruction companytracts of the respondents were agreements to execute works to be paid for according to measurements at the rates specified in the schedule thereto and were number companytracts for sale of the materials used there in and that further they were entire and indivisible and could number be broken up into a companytract for sale of materials and a companytract for payment for work done.
2951528 7 4 in the taxable turnumberer of the respondents companyld number be maintained.
as regards the item of rs.
22 23 24 feb.
