DABUR INDIA LTD Vs. HANSA VISION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No.1 Hansa Vision Ltd. filed a suit seeking decree in sum of Rs.43,85,605.00. 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.47,13,897.00 became payable to it. Alleging that defendants acknowledged liability to pay Rs.23,39,177.00 but defendant Nos. 1 and 2 thereafter informed having paid Rs.32,34,250.00 to defendant No.3, and washed off their hands; alleging further that Rs.23,39,177.00 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.43,85,650.00.

(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.) DEFENDANT No.3 remained ex-parte.