TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court upholds contract terms limiting liability, emphasizing importance of adhering to agreements.</h1> <h3>BHARATHI KNITTING COMPANY Versus DHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESSCOURIER DIVISION OFAIRFREIGHT LTD.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the National Commission's decision to limit liability to US $100 as per the contract terms, dismissing the appellant's claim for ... - Issues:The issues involved in this case include the interpretation of liability under a contract, the application of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the determination of damages for deficiency in service.Interpretation of Liability under Contract:The case involved a dispute where the appellant sought damages for loss incurred due to non-delivery of consignment. The National Commission held that the liability was limited to US $100 as per the contract terms. The appellant argued that the liability should not be reduced and that the damages should be awarded for the loss incurred. The Commission upheld the limitation of liability as per the contract terms, emphasizing that parties are bound by the terms of the contract they have signed.Application of Consumer Protection Act, 1986:The appellant contended that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 aims to provide quick and affordable relief to consumers. However, the National Commission's decision to limit liability to US $100 was challenged. The Commission reiterated that the Act provides a summary remedy but also highlighted that liability is determined based on the terms of the contract between the parties.Determination of Damages for Deficiency in Service:The National Commission, in its order, limited the liability based on the terms of the contract entered into by the parties. The appellant's argument for higher damages was dismissed, and it was held that the liability for deficiency in service was correctly determined as per the contract terms. The Commission emphasized that the terms of the contract govern the extent of liability and that the appellant was not entitled to additional damages beyond what was agreed upon.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the National Commission's decision to limit liability as per the contract terms and dismissed the appeal. The Court emphasized the importance of abiding by the terms of a contract and reiterated that parties are bound by the agreements they have signed. The judgment serves as a precedent for future cases involving liability under contracts and the application of consumer protection laws.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
