INDOCHEM ELECTRONICS Vs. ADDL COLECTOR OF CUSTOMS A P
LAWS(SC)-2006-2-40
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 24,2006

INDOCHEM ELECTRONIC Appellant
VERSUS
ADDL. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. BALBIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

TRG INDUSTRIES PVT LTD VS. CHZK DORMASH SERVICES [LAWS(DLH)-2007-9-273] [REFERRED TO]
KURJI HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL VS. BOEHRINGER MANNHEIM INDIA LTD [LAWS(NCD)-2007-8-79] [REFERRED TO]
C N ANANTHARAM VS. FIAT INDIA LTD [LAWS(SC)-2010-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD VS. M MADHUSUDHAN REDDY [LAWS(SC)-2012-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER-LEGAL A.SRIKRISHNA VS. AMARESWARA RAO [LAWS(APCDRC)-2011-11-34] [REFERRED TO]
S.P.R. SALES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. G.M. BREWERIES LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2011-3-460] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL SEEDS CORPN LTD VS. PV KRISHNA REDDY [LAWS(NCD)-2008-11-33] [REFERRED]
LOVE KUMAR SHARMA VS. CARGO MOTORS (P) LTD & ANR ; FLAT INDIA AUTOMOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(NCD)-2015-7-210] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellants supplied EPABX telephone system to the respondent in the month of March, 1990. The said system was installed in the office of the respondent on 18th March, 1990 at a cost of Rs. 1,87,599/-. In terms of the contract of sale entered into by and between the parties, a warranty for a period of 1 year was issued for the said equipments. The appellants during negotiations agreed that a service center at Vishakhapatnam would be opened for convenience of the said office and other customers. The said assurance was categorically given in the offer of the respondent dated 14.2.1990. At the relevant time furthermore approval of the Telecommunication Department for installation of the EPABX system in the respondents office had not been given. The respondent was informed, on a query made in that behalf by the Chief General Manager of the Telecommunication Department, that the EPABX system supplied by the appellants was not in departments approved list. Such approval was, however, granted only on 25.3.1991.
(3.)On or about 13.9.1990 a letter of complaint was issued by the complainant to the appellants herein inter alia stating that:
It is registered (sic) to note that the 32 instruments supplied by you in the month of March, 1990 are not working properly. Main drawbacks are as under:

a. Getting wrong numbers is a frequent complaint.

b. The conversations are being interrupted and we hear some music and the conversations stop.

c. Instruments with key pad lock system supplied are not at all working with the result that instruments of the Telecom Department has been fixed removing the instruments supplied by you.

You may recall that at the time of submitting the tender, it was assured that you will supply fault-less EPABX and intercom facilities. However, EPABX and intercom facilities supplied by you are not working properly and not upto the mark.

You may also recall that you have promised to keep a permanent resident engineer at Visakhapatnam to avoid such defects. However, no such arrangements has been made.

You are, therefore, requested to immediately send your engineer to inspect all the instruments and EPABX and rectify all the defects immediately. You are also requested to post a permanent resident engineer at Visakhapatnam.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.