9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court 2. Implied Warranty of Title and Quality 3. Entitlement to Damages Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court: The court addressed whether it had the jurisdiction to try the suit, given that the sale and delivery of goods occurred in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. The appellant contended that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction. However, the court found that since the asbestos sheets were used at Shornur and the cause of action (the leakage) arose there, it had jurisdiction to decide the matter. The appellant did not request the court to consider jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, nor was it significantly contested during the trial. The court upheld its jurisdiction to hear the case. 2. Implied Warranty of Title and Quality: The central issue was whether there was an implied warranty regarding the quality of the asbestos sheets. According to the plaintiff, the asbestos sheets leaked during the monsoon due to manufacturing defects, despite several remedial measures advised by the manufacturer. The manufacturer denied any defects, attributing the leakage to improper ventilation and construction of the theatre. The court relied on Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, which deals with implied conditions as to quality or fitness. It was established that the plaintiff had informed the seller of the specific purpose (roofing) for which the sheets were purchased, thus creating an implied warranty that the goods would be fit for that purpose. The court found that the asbestos sheets had manufacturing defects, as evidenced by the Commissioner's report and the plaintiff's testimony, which were not effectively rebutted by the manufacturer. 3. Entitlement to Damages: The plaintiff sought damages due to the defective asbestos sheets, which caused leakage and subsequent damage to the theatre's plaster of paris ceiling. The court awarded damages based on the breach of implied warranty under Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act. The court decreed an amount of Rs. 39,111.25 with interest at 6%, which included compensation for the defective goods and additional expenses incurred to mitigate the leakage. The appellant argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages as they had retained and used the goods. However, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation under Sub-section (2) of Section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act for the breach of implied warranty. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's judgment and decree. It affirmed that the court had territorial jurisdiction, there was an implied warranty regarding the quality of the asbestos sheets, and the plaintiff was entitled to damages due to the breach of this warranty. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.
|
