https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414114 A complaint for cheating against an e-commerce marketplace intermediary failed because the materials did not show dishonest inducement from the inception of the transaction. The petitioner was only a facilitator, not the seller, supplier or owner of the goods, and no direct role was shown in dispatch, delivery or refund, nor any deceptive representation to induce payment. On those facts, the essential ingredients of cheating were absent, and the magistrate's order issuing process could not stand. The Bombay HC therefore quashed the complaint and the process insofar as they related to the petitioner, treating the matter as at most a commercial or consumer dispute. en-us Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Oct 2021 04:48:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414114 A complaint for cheating against an e-commerce marketplace intermediary failed because the materials did not show dishonest inducement from the inception of the transaction. The petitioner was only a facilitator, not the seller, supplier or owner of the goods, and no direct role was shown in dispatch, delivery or refund, nor any deceptive representation to induce payment. On those facts, the essential ingredients of cheating were absent, and the magistrate's order issuing process could not stand. The Bombay HC therefore quashed the complaint and the process insofar as they related to the petitioner, treating the matter as at most a commercial or consumer dispute. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414114