Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.31 seconds)
Imperial Auto Industries Ltd vs Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd on 24 August, 2024 cites

Tata Motors Ltd. vs Antonio Paulo Vaz on 18 February, 2021

In the matter of Tata Motors Ltd. (supra), which has been relied by both the sides, Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para no. 28 of the Judgment that unless the manufacturer's knowledge is proved, a decision fastening liability upon the manufacturers would be untenable, given that its relationship with the dealer, in the facts of that case, were CS (Comm.) No: 150/2021 Page 67 of 71 -68- on principal to principal basis. In the case in hand, the defendant no. 1 would have been well within its right to deny its liability to pay the suit amount in case it would not have the requisite knowledge about the transaction in question, as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment. However, it has already been held by this Court in the preceding paras of this judgment that the defendant no. 1 not only had due knowledge about the transaction in question, but, it was also duly served with Legal Notice dated 09.06.2019 from the side of plaintiff company, thereby duly calling upon it to refund the amount paid against same price of the Audi Car in question to its authorized dealer i.e., defendant no. 10 through RTGS. The other cited judgments relied on behalf of defendant no. 1, are also thus distinguishable on facts and circumstances of the present case and hence, would be of no help to the case of defendant no. 1 herein.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Kalu Ram Kole vs State Of Chhattisgarh 9 Mcrc/9466/2018 ... on 4 December, 2018

(xv) No doubt, the plaintiff through its witnesses failed to establish that it had sent letters/e-mails to defendant no.1 regarding status of delivery of Audi car in question, as averred in the plaint. However, it is duly established on record that the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 09-6-2019 upon defendant no.1 before institution of the suit. It is an undisputed fact that the defendant no.1 failed to give any reply to the said legal notice. No plausible explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from the side of defendant no.1 in this regard. Although, counsel of defendant no.1 attempted to wriggle out of the said situation by submitting that said legal notice was got issued by the plaintiff to defendant no.1 after considerable gap of about 10 months of Termination of Dealership Agreement of defendant no.10 and after 18 months from the date of alleged transaction, which shows that the entire case of the plaintiff is an afterthought. There is an apparent fallacy in the said argument for the simple reason that issuance of legal notice by plaintiff to defendant no.1 even after a gap of 18 months from the transaction in question, would not be of any adverse impact to the case of the plaintiff as it is a specific case of the plaintiff that it was making efforts by taking up the matter not only with the defendant no.10 but also with the CS (Comm.) No: 150/2021 Page 57 of 71 -58- officers/ representatives of defendant no.1. It was obligatory on the part of the defendant no.1 to give reply to said legal notice thereby clearing its said stand to the plaintiff. Having failed to do so, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against defendant no.1. While saying so, this Court is also fortified by the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "TAS Engineering Co.(Pvt.) Ltd. v. M/s G & T Resources World Wide" bearing RFA No. 90/2022 decided on 26-07-2011 and 'Kalu Ram v. Sita Ram' reported as 1980 RLR (Note) 44, as are also being relied upon by the plaintiff.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 179 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next