16.2 C
New York
Wednesday, April 24, 2024

Buy now

spot_img

Amazon India v. State of Maharashtra

[ad_1]

Amazon India v. Point out of Maharashtra
(2022) 1 Bom CR (Cri) 326
In the High Court docket of Bombay
WP 3047/2021
In advance of Justice Sandeep K. Shinde
Made the decision on October 28, 2021

Relevancy of the Situation: Criminal legal responsibility of an e-commerce system owing to non-supply of an purchased product or service by the seller

Statutes and Provisions Included

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Part 2(w))
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 34, 415, 420)
  • The Structure of India, 1950 (Short article 227)
  • The Code of Criminal Process, 1973 (Portion 200, 202, 154(3), 156(3), 482)

Relevant Information of the Case

  • The complainant positioned an buy that was not shipped to him by the petitioner (Amazon) and the accused amount 2 (seller).
  • The complainant lodged a complaint with the Central Law enforcement Station on the other hand, they did not acquire any action.
  • The involved Judicial Justice of the peace Initially Course issued directions to the initial respondent (Condition) for registering an FIR. Aggrieved by this buy, the petitioner has approached the Significant Court docket through a writ petition.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates:

  • The petitioner’s counsel argued that the aspect of cheating is wholly absent. The current dispute is purely commercial in nature, resulting in a client dispute or deficiency in support. The Uncovered Judicial Justice of the peace 1st Course lacked jurisdiction to difficulty orders without the need of compliance under Section 154(3) of the Code of Prison Method, 1973. The petitioner is merely an intermediary in the transaction, so it must not be a get together to the existing case.
  • The respondent’s counsel submitted that the purchase was positioned by the petitioner’s website, and the payment was produced to the petitioner’s UPI address. Therefore, it is a bash to the current dispute. Non-shipping and delivery of the ordered product or service and failure to fix the elevated complaint by the petitioner’s consumer executive to initiate a refund resulted in a breach of the A to Z promise clause, amounting to dishonest.

Belief of the Bench

  • The petition is neither a seller nor a customer but only an intermediary acting as a facilitator. Consequently, it ought to not be a party to the present dispute.
  • The absence of malafide intention and deficiency of appropriate proof exclude dishonest from the present circumstance.

Ultimate Conclusion

  • The courtroom allowed the petition and quashed the pending complaint just before the Judicial Magistrate and linked proceedings.

Khilansha Mukhija, an undergraduate pupil at the Institute of Regulation, Nirma University Ahmedabad, prepared this scenario summary for the duration of her internship with The Cyber Site India in January/February 2024.

[ad_2]

Source url

Related Articles

Stay Connected

0FansLike
3,912FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
- Advertisement -spot_img

Latest Articles