Harvard Law Review's Take on Lotus v. M. B. Patel

Lotus v. M. B. Patel (1987), a PIL by M. B. Patel to get his car repaired by the nearest authorized dealer. In India, under the Contract Act, it's the responsibility of the manufacturer to give warranty and also the consumer has the duty to follow the manufacturer's instructions while purchasing.

However, the Gujarat High Court ruled in favour of the manufacturer, stating that the warranty period cannot be extended. The judgment went against the PIL, as the High Court held that no implied warranty exists in a sale of goods, and the warranty period is not liable to be extended.

So what do you guys think about this judgment? Was it right or wrong?