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
been stated by the defendant
that the plaintiff had supplied the defective packaging material to
the defendant and due to this reason, the same could ... repeated reminders from the defendant, the
plaintiff has neither replaced the defective packaging material nor
took it back. It is further stated that the entire
raised by defendants was that due
to the sub-standard defective packaging material supplied
by plaintiff, the defendants suffered a loss ... admittedly received by the plaintiff, had informed the
plaintiff qua the defective packaging material and had
requested to take back the same. The plaintiff, however
with the packaging material.
He had acknowledged that the packaging material supplied by
CS (COMM) 452/2023 M/s. Rishi Packaging through its Proprietor ... being utilized by the defendant. He had
stated that, since the defective packaging material could not be
used in the machine for packing, hence
engaged
the plaintiff for designing and packaging. Even otherwise the packaging
material printed by the plaintiff was defective. It is also denied that
defendant ... mentioned at
point 1 as 60 gms. He denied suggestion that packaging is defect and
misrepresented the quantity of the contents in the box, therefore
that the supplied
goods/products were received without appropriate packaging as
required and were defective. Plaintiff also relied upon e-way bills to
prove ... written intimation to the
plaintiff with regard to any defect or deficiency in the packaging
of the goods delivered. Submission of Ld. counsel for defendant
defects have not been cured till date. It is not his
contention that defects is pardonable. Plaintiff has not come
forward to cure the defect ... extent of defect or that the defects led to non
functioning of the machine. What was the extent of defect is not
explicit
including NTPC, who complained and returned the
defective goods. Upon inspection also, it discovered that the
packaging had a different expiry date than that ... role or responsibility for the defects or the
non performance of the products. If any defect regarding the
fake and expired product is brought
M/S S.S. Industries vs M/S Biscuit Basket Pvt Ltd on 8 April
