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

V.K.JAIN, B.C.GUPTA
Jayem Impex – Appellant
Versus
Hiteshbhai Gokalbhai Maru – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Joydip Bhattacharya, Advocate

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

V.K.Jain, Presiding Member—The respondent/complainant, claiming to be in the business of embroidery and job work of tailoring in the name of Tamanna Textiles purchased a Kansai Pin-Tucking Machine and Kansai Special 12 Needle Pleating Machine from the petitioner. He paid a sum of Rs. 2,02,000/- for the Tucking Machine completed with table/stand/motor and standard accessories and Rs. 2,05,000/- for the Needle Pleating Machine completed with table/stand/motor and standard accessories. According to the complainant a steam iron was also purchased by him alongwith the aforesaid two machines. However, the said steam iron was returned since it was found to be defective. The steam iron was then repaired by the petitioner, but even thereafter it was not working properly.

2. When a technician was eventually deputed by the petitioner to install the Tucking Machine and the Pleating Machine, it was found that in one machine only the sewing work could be done and there was no attachment. The machines would work in the gap of 1/8, but there was no folder in it. It was found by the complainant that Pleating and Tucking work could not be done with the aforesaid machines. As a result,













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