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

1987 Supreme(Ker) 381

T.KOCHU THOMMEN
DADHA & CO – Appellant
Versus
PAULSON MEDICAL STORES – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The first defendant in a suit for recovery of damages is the appellant. The suit was decreed by the trial court against the second defendant. But on appeal by the plaintiffs, the suit was decreed against both the defendants, and the conversation awarded by the trial court in the sum of Rs. 2000/ was enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- together with interest.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff, a Partnership firm, was a licensee under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (the "Drugs Act") and the other two plaintiffs were partners of the firm. The first plaintiff purchased from the first defendant on 29-5-1971 a certain quantity of "Sweetin" bearing a guarantee that the articles did not "contravene in any way the provisions of S.18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940." Unknown to the plaintiffs, a notification had been issued on 25-5-1971, and published in the gazette on 26-5-1971, under Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, made under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the "Food Adulteration Act"), whereby sachrine sodium was included in Appendix B prescribing certain standards of quality. To sell, distribute, or store an








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