New Delhi: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday quashed a prison grievance lodged towards South Korean MNC Samsung firm by the state Legal Metrology Department on packaging guidelines, terming it “frivolous”.
A bench, headed by Justice Sachin Shankar Magdum, pronounced its order whereas listening to the petition by Samsung India Electronics Private Ltd in search of a quashing of the case. (Also Read: In Pics | Ayodhya Ram Mandir Construction Update: Ground Floor Almost Completed)
It opined that the contents of the grievance are completely trivial and unlucky, and even when the allegations are accepted, they will not represent an offence. (Also Read: Realme 11 Pro+ First Sale Starts Today: Check Price, Discounts, Specs, Where To Buy, And More)
As per the foundations underneath the Legal Metrology Act’s Sections 52 and 10, the sections will solely apply to the measurements and to not the utmost retail worth (MRP). The cost of violation of Section 11 has been sidelined on this background, the bench acknowledged.
The fees within the grievance apply to retail packages and never wholesale bulk packages. When the grievance is verified, it seems clearly that the act of lodging the grievance itself is inaccurate and tainted with malafide, the court docket stated, including that the petitioner has additionally not made particular allegations towards the corporate.
The authorized metrology legal guidelines are outlined wrongly and a grievance has been lodged therefore it’s quashed, the bench stated.
The officers of the Legal Metrology division throughout their inspection at ABM TeleMobiles India Ltd, the distributors of Samsung mobiles, discovered that Rs 14,000 talked about because the MRP of Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 was not in conformity with rule 4 (2) of the Legal Metrology (Numeration) Rules.
Samsung firm had given an in depth response to the present trigger discover issued by the division. But, the division officers had issued a discover and requested the corporate administration to seem personally for enquiry. They had additionally warned that in the event that they fail to take action, they might lodge a grievance. A non-public grievance was later lodged with a Justice of the Peace’s court docket.
The court docket had taken cognizance of the offence and issued summons to Samsung. The firm had approached the High Court in search of quashing of the case, sustaining that it was lodged illegally.
