<?xml version="1.0"?>
<oembed><version>1.0</version><provider_name>Law Times Journal</provider_name><provider_url>https://lawtimesjournal.in</provider_url><author_name>Joshua Joseph</author_name><author_url>https://lawtimesjournal.in/author/joshua-joseph/</author_url><title>Manufacturer Not Liable for Dealer's Fault Unless Manufacturer's Knowledge Is Proved in Cases: SC</title><type>rich</type><width>600</width><height>338</height><html>&lt;blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="zs5cRphwRx"&gt;&lt;a href="https://lawtimesjournal.in/manufacturer-not-liable-for-dealers-fault-unless-manufacturers-knowledge-is-proved-in-cases-sc/"&gt;Manufacturer Not Liable for Dealer&#x2019;s Fault Unless Manufacturer&#x2019;s Knowledge Is Proved in Cases: SC&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://lawtimesjournal.in/manufacturer-not-liable-for-dealers-fault-unless-manufacturers-knowledge-is-proved-in-cases-sc/embed/#?secret=zs5cRphwRx" width="600" height="338" title="&#x201C;Manufacturer Not Liable for Dealer&#x2019;s Fault Unless Manufacturer&#x2019;s Knowledge Is Proved in Cases: SC&#x201D; &#x2014; Law Times Journal" data-secret="zs5cRphwRx" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;script type="text/javascript"&gt;
/* &lt;![CDATA[ */
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&amp;&amp;d.addEventListener&amp;&amp;"undefined"!=typeof URL&amp;&amp;(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&amp;&amp;!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i&lt;o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i&lt;a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&amp;&amp;(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3&lt;(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r&lt;200&amp;&amp;(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&amp;&amp;(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&amp;&amp;n.host===r.host&amp;&amp;l.activeElement===s&amp;&amp;(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r&lt;s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);
/* ]]&gt; */
&lt;/script&gt;
</html><thumbnail_url>https://lawtimesjournal.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/supreme-court-2.png</thumbnail_url><thumbnail_width>1200</thumbnail_width><thumbnail_height>628</thumbnail_height><description>The Supreme Court had recently observed, that unless it is proven that the manufacturer was aware of the dealer's deficiency, the manufacturer would not be responsible for the dealer's liability in situations where the relationship between them is on a "principle-to-principle" basis.</description></oembed>
