Jose Philip Mampillil vs Premier Automobiles Ltd. And Anr on 27 January, 2004
In almost a similar case
certain directions were given in Jose Phillip Mampillil v.
Premier Automobiles Ltd. (2004 (2) SCC 278).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.17 seconds)Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. & ... vs Gajanan Y. Mandrekar on 5 May, 1997
The High Court held that the warranty condition relied
upon by the appellant did not warrant interpretation that only
the defective part was to be replaced and not the car itself.
Reference was made to certain observations in the Corpus
Juris Secundrum Volume 77 page 1198. It was held that the
booklet containing warranty clearly indicates promise of
service and replacement with certain conditions. It was
observed that the Commission was justified in its conclusion
that the appellant had agreed to replace the vehicle and had
admitted that there was manufacturing defect in the
concerned part. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this
Court in Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Gajanan Y.
Mandrekar (1997(5) SCC 507). Therefore, the appellant was
directed to replace the car or repay the amount received by it
as sale price with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 27.11.1996 with
costs awarded by the Commission.
1