ASIAN CENTRE FOR ORGANIZATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Vs. DOTS ADVERTISING AND MARKETING CONSULTS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is to the impugned judgment dated 2.3.2002 of the trial court which has decreed the suit for recovery of the respondent no.1/plaintiff against the appellants/defendants with respect to advertisements given by the respondent no.1/plaintiff in newspapers on behalf of the appellants/defendants.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent no.1/plaintiff was doing a business of advertising for various parties. THE appellants sometimes in the beginning of March, 1995 approached the respondent no.1/plaintiff to release advertisements in various newspapers and requested the respondent no.1/plaintiff to submit a quotation for designing of the advertisements and release thereof. Pursuant thereto, the respondent no.1/plaintiff submitted a quotation along with the design to the defendant no.1 on 16.3.1995 and the same was duly approved and accepted by the appellants on the same date i.e., 16.3.1995. THE respondent no.1/plaintiff designed and prepared advertisements at the specified request and order of the appellants and released them as per instructions of the appellants in various newspapers being Times of India, Lucknow, Delhi on 22.3.1995, Patna on 24.3.1995, Ahmedabad on 27.3.1995, Mumbai on 27.3.1995, Bangalore on 29.3.1995. Advertisements were also given by the respondent no.1/plaintiff on behalf of the appellants in the Economic Times Delhi on 21.3.1995, Calcutta on 29.3.1995 and Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Madras and Mumbai on 28.3.1995, Hindustan Times on 28.3.1995 and also other newspapers. All these advertisements as mentioned were published as per the instructions of the appellants and thereafter, the respondent no.1/plaintiff raised an invoice dated 31.3.1995 for a total amount of Rs.2,52,528/- accompanied by the vouchers in support of the above advertisements published. On receipt of the invoice, the appellants released part payment of Rs. 15,000/- by cheque on 5.6.1996 and further released a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(rupees one lac) in the month of December, 1996. Since in spite of reminders and requests on telephone, the balance outstanding payment was not made, a legal notice was sent by the respondent no.1/plaintiff on 30.8.1997 to which no reply was given and therefore the subject suit came to be filed.

(3.) A reference to the aforesaid findings and conclusions of the trial court and also the admitted documents Ex.PW1/1 which is the contract between the parties shows that the contract was only between the appellants and respondent no.1/plaintiff. There is no reference in Ex.PW1/1 that the appellants acting only as the agents for the Dalmiya Group. The appellants may have many clients including the Dalmiya Group and for which, it may cause advertisements to be published in newspapers, however, that would not mean that the respondent no.1/plaintiff had any privity of contract with the said M/s Dalmiya Group. The contract of the appellants was only with respondent no.1/plaintiff. No doubt remains on this issue, inasmuch as, the appellants themselves have released two payments of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent no.1, and which would not have been if the appellants were not liable under the Contract.