DABUR INDIA LTD Vs. HANSA VISION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 Hansa Vision Ltd. filed a suit seeking decree in sum of Rs. 43,85,605/-. It pleaded being engaged in the business of marketing T. V. serials and advertising on television. It pleaded that Dabur India Ltd. , defendant No. 1, had appointed Adbur Pvt. Ltd. , defendant No. 2, as its agent to advertise its products and in turn Adbur Pvt. Ltd. had appointed M/s A. V. Communications, defendant No. 3, as the sub-agent, which defendant, in said capacity i. e. of a sub-agent, approached M/s Hansa Vision Ltd. to advertise products of the first defendant during telecast of various programmes by various television networks and for which defendant No. 3 issued release orders on April 06, 1995 and April 26, 1995 as also a release order dated nil, pursuant whereto, Hansa Vision obtained slots in various programmes aired by various T. V. networks in which advertisements of defendant No. 1 were aired and for which it was pleaded that as per the agreement a sum of Rs. 47,13,897/- became payable to it. Alleging that defendants acknowledged liability to pay Rs. 23,39,177/- but defendant Nos. 1 and 2 thereafter informed having paid Rs. 32,34,250/- to defendant No. 3, and washed off their hands; alleging further that Rs. 23,39,177/- was admittedly payable as of July 23, 1999 and claiming pre-suit interest @ 18% per annum, suit was filed praying for a decree in sum of Rs. 43,85,650/-.

(2.) In the written statement jointly filed by Dabur India Ltd. and Adbur Pvt. Ltd. , it was pleaded that the plaintiff executed the works as per a contract with defendant No. 3 with respect to the publicity/advertising job assigned by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 3 on principal to principal basis; and that the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 was also of principal to principal. It was denied that defendant No. 3 acted as the sub-agent of defendant No. 1. As regards defendant No. 2, requiring defendant No. 3 to execute the publicity work on behalf of defendant No. 1, it was pleaded that the said pertained to an internal working between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 and had no concern with the claim of the plaintiff. It pleaded having paid full money to defendant No. 3.

(3.) In a nutshell, the pleading was that for advertising the products of defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2 had entered into a principal to principal contract with defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 3 had likewise entered into a principal to principal contract with the plaintiff. As per defendants No. 1 and 2, they had made the entire payment to defendant No. 3 and it was for the plaintiff to realize the money, if any unpaid, from defendant No. 3.