[ad_1]
Amazon India v. State of Maharashtra
(2022) 1 Bom CR (Cri) 326
In the Large Courtroom of Bombay
WP 3047/2021
Ahead of Justice Sandeep K. Shinde
Resolved on Oct 28, 2021
Relevancy of the Circumstance: Felony liability of an e-commerce system owing to non-shipping and delivery of an ordered solution by the vendor
Statutes and Provisions Concerned
- The Details Technology Act, 2000 (Portion 2(w))
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 34, 415, 420)
- The Constitution of India, 1950 (Post 227)
- The Code of Felony Technique, 1973 (Area 200, 202, 154(3), 156(3), 482)
Applicable Info of the Situation
- The complainant placed an get that was not sent to him by the petitioner (Amazon) and the accused range 2 (seller).
- The complainant lodged a criticism with the Central Police Station even so, they did not choose any motion.
- The involved Judicial Justice of the peace Very first Course issued instructions to the initially respondent (State) for registering an FIR. Aggrieved by this get, the petitioner has approached the Higher Court by a writ petition.
Outstanding Arguments by the Advocates:
- The petitioner’s counsel argued that the ingredient of dishonest is wholly absent. The current dispute is purely commercial in mother nature, ensuing in a consumer dispute or deficiency in provider. The Learned Judicial Magistrate Initially Course lacked jurisdiction to problem orders with out compliance underneath Portion 154(3) of the Code of Prison Procedure, 1973. The petitioner is basically an intermediary in the transaction, so it need to not be a celebration to the present situation.
- The respondent’s counsel submitted that the purchase was positioned by the petitioner’s web-site, and the payment was manufactured to the petitioner’s UPI address. Hence, it is a celebration to the present dispute. Non-delivery of the purchased merchandise and failure to fix the elevated criticism by the petitioner’s client govt to initiate a refund resulted in a breach of the A to Z assurance clause, amounting to dishonest.
Viewpoint of the Bench
- The petition is neither a seller nor a buyer but only an intermediary performing as a facilitator. As a result, it ought to not be a bash to the current dispute.
- The absence of malafide intention and absence of suitable evidence exclude dishonest from the present scenario.
Ultimate Choice
- The court docket allowed the petition and quashed the pending complaint ahead of the Judicial Magistrate and involved proceedings.
Khilansha Mukhija, an undergraduate pupil at the Institute of Legislation, Nirma University Ahmedabad, well prepared this situation summary during her internship with The Cyber Website India in January/February 2024.
[ad_2]
Source connection
