9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (8) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to as "the Act"). The first petitioner is a private limited company which claims to possess a high degree of technical expertise in the field of building construction. The first petitioner entered into an agreement dated June 28, 1976, with a partnership known as "National Construction Company" which is situate in Bahrain. Under the said agreement, the first petitioner was to provide assistance in the technical plan project, methods and execution thereof, selection of equipment required from time to time, drawing up specifications of different materials and items and inviting and filling in tenders. It was also required to interview technical staff and recommend them for appointment as required by the National Construction Company from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payable irrespective of the fact whether services are rendered or not. (c) The agreement appeared to be in the nature of loaning the services of the directors by providing a retainership fee of Rs. 4,00,000 per annum, and (d) The agreement was more in the nature of an agreement of recruitment of personnel and not for technical services. Before arriving at this decision, the Board had called upon the first petitioner to supply them details of technical drawings, if any, supplied by the first petitioner under the agreement to the foreign contracting party. The first petitioner supplied hardly a few drawings and documents. The first petitioner was unable to satisfy the Board that any further material, as to the exact nature of the techni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oad at their own cost and, therefore, the said amount had been taken as consultancy fees by the first petitioner as per its letter dated August 16, 1976. When further probed for particulars, the first petitioner came up with the explanation that the original documents were not traceable and made available only copies. In view of these circumstances, by the impugned order dated February 17, 1986, the Board came to the conclusion that the previous decision taken to refuse approval to the concerned agreement for the purpose of section 80-0 of the Act could not be reviewed and informed the petitioners accordingly. It is the second order passed by the Board on February 17, 1986, which has been impugned in this petition. The decision of the Boa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
