SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

SUSHEELA CHELUVARAJU, K.R.RAMASWAMY IYENGAR, D.R.VITHAL RAO
MOHANARAO MARUTHIRAO CHARGE – Appellant
Versus
SIPANI AUTOMOBILES LTD. – Respondent


ORDER

Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President—The learned Counsel for the Respondent and the Respondent are absent. The Respondent has filed his statement of objections. The learned Counsel” for the Complainant and the Complainant are present.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:

The Complainant purchased a Montana Diesel Car by making payment of a sum of Rs. 1,25,024/- to the Respondent. The Complainant made payment of this amount to the Respondent on 3 occasions, i.e., an amount of Rs. 10,000/- at the time of booking in the month of April 1989; an amount of Rs. 1,06,650/- on 13-8-1990 and further sum of Rs. 8,374/- in the month of September, 1990, as per Annexures D and F. The Complainant took delivery of this vehicle from the Respondent in the month of November 1990. The Complainant purchased this vehicle in pursuance of an advertisement given by the Respondent in the English Daily Newspaper Deccan Herald dated 4-7-1989 and also publication made in some other newspapers and automobile journals to the effect that the engine was manufactured by V.S.T. Tillers and Tractors, Bangalore with joint collaboration of Mitsubishi, Japan and that the said car was tested and approved ro








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top