AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
1 paragraphs · 183 wordsHEARD the appellant and the Counsel for Respondents 2 and 3. From exhibit P2 which is a copy of the application filed by the appellant to Respondent No. 2, it is clear that he has agreed to pay the difference in the price, if it is increased before the date of delivery and that the delivery might take place within the period of eight to ten weeks. He has undertaken to abide by those conditions. The application is dated 14.2.1990 and on the same day the payment was made. The Excise Duty was increased with effect from 20.3.1990 and the price of the car was increased with effect from 27.3.1990. The car was delivered to the complainant on 30.3.1990. It is clear from Exhibit P3, that the car was cleared by the Central Excise on 27.3.1990 at Bombay. There is no evidence to show that the car was ready earlier to 27.3.1990. Hence, the order dismissing the complaint is proper. As the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.
