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

ELLEN DHARKAR, G.G.LONEY, M.G.GAVAI
S. M. SETHNA – Appellant
Versus
ANIL CHOKSHI – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant: In Person.

ORDER

Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President— In this complaint, the complainant alleged that a Konica Automatic Processor Model QX-40 for processing X-ray and sonography films was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party was defective.

2. The complainant alleged that on 4.10.1990 the O.P. 1 sent a proforma invoice for Rs. 44,000/- dated 1.10.90 from Konica Corporation, Tokyo Japan vide Exhibit B-I and B-II. On 31.12.90, the opposite party informed the complainant that the machine has been shipped for delivery. On 15.1.91; the Opposite Party (O.P.) No. 1 again informed the complainant to extend the date for delivery as goods were not in stock for Indian Market and they would produce the machine in March, 1991. The relevant X-Ray is DID-II. The complainant had also paid Rs. 4,000/- as service charges for the import of the said machine on 24.4.91 vide Ex. E. The complainant cleared the custom duties on 21.5.91 by paying Rs. 82,590/- vide Ex. ’F’. When Carton was opened, the complainant found that the machine was inspected on November, 1987 indicating that it was an old machine. After installation on 29.5.91 by O.P. 1, the machine was found defective and not in proper working ord









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