disputed consignments were defective
and sub-standard; (ii) respondent-Firm committed the breach of
contract by supplying defective and sub-standard packaging
materials ... consignments were defective and sub-standard.
The Arbitrator further held that the respondent-Firm could not
prove that the defect in the packaging materials
disputed consignments were defective
and sub-standard; (ii) respondent-Firm committed the breach of
contract by supplying defective and sub-standard packaging
materials ... consignments were defective and sub-standard.
The Arbitrator further held that the respondent-Firm could not
prove that the defect in the packaging materials
that the packaging of the consignment/statues was defective or
that it was the defective packaging which resulted into damage to
the consignment/statues ... that the
packaging was indeed inferior or defective. The defendant's plea
of defective/inferior packaging appears to be nothing but an
afterthought
transaction in issue. Secondly the goods
supplied by the complainant faced packaging defects due to which the
accused had returned the goods back ... goods actually supplied by the complainant were packed in a
defective packaging and the accused had received several complaints
regarding packaging of the goods from
amount of € 2,60,037 has been claimed
against alleged defective packaging and cost of additional
labeling incurred by the Appellant. It is the case
packages did not bear the statutory declaration of Maximum Retail
5
Price in accordance with Rules, 2011. Hence, it was concluded that the
packages violated ... During the inspection, the District Legal Metrology Officer-P seized
2 defective packages from A7, out of the 15, and the remaining 13
packages were
packages violated Rule 4, Rule 6(2), and Rule 18(1) of the Rules,
2011. Further, the accused, by possessing and displaying the
packages ... inspection, the District Legal Metrology Officer-P
Satyanarayana, seized 2 defective packages from A7, out of the 244,
and the remaining 242 packages were kept
packages violated Rule 4, Rule 6(2), and Rule 18(1) of the Rules,
2011. Further, the accused, by possessing and displaying the
packages ... inspection, the District Legal Metrology Officer-P
Satyanarayana, seized 2 defective packages from A7, out of the 244,
and the remaining 242 packages were kept
packages did not bear the statutory declaration of Maximum Retail
5
Price in accordance with Rules, 2011. Hence, it was concluded that the
packages violated ... During the inspection, the District Legal Metrology Officer-P seized
2 defective packages from A7, out of the 15, and the remaining 13
packages were
Rule 6(2) and Rule 18(1) of
the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011
(hereinafter, "the Rules, 2011").
5. The genesis ... inspection, the District Legal Metrology Officer-P
Satyanarayana, seized 2 defective packages from A7, out of the 135,
and the remaining 133 packages were kept
