ASIA TODAY LIMITED Vs. MUDRA COMMUNICATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these proceedings under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the first plaintiff is engaged in the business of conducting satellite based Broadcasting of Programmes in the Asian region in 40 countries including India. The second plaintiff has acted as a Canvassing and collecting Agent in India of the first plaintiff. The second plaintiff has procured advertisements for the first plaintiff through Advertising Agencies such as the first defendant. In the present case, the first defendant procured advertisements for the first plaintiff from the second defendant which is a company carrying on business in acrylic and Synthetic Yarn.

(2.) THE second plaintiff was approached by the first defendant on behalf of the second defendant for advertising the products of the second defendant. The General terms and conditions governing the broadcast of advertisements in the TV channels of the first plaintiff have been laid down by the first plaintiff and were duly accepted by the defendants. The first defendant issued what are known as Traffic/release Orders from time to time on behalf of the second defendant, who was a client of the first defendant. These Traffic Release Orders were issued in 1994-95. A copy of one of the said release orders is annexed at Exh. B to the plaint. By the said Traffic Release Order, the first defendant has authorised the plaintiff to release certain advertisements which were listed therein on behalf of the second defendant whose name was specified as the client. The first defendant stated that it had read the general terms and conditions and sales policy of the first plaintiff and confirmed its acceptance.

(3.) PURSUANT to these Traffic Release Orders advertisements were broadcast on ZEE T. V. and invoices were raised by the first plaintiff which were forwarded by the second plaintiff under its covering letter to the first defendant together with debit notes which were raised by the second plaintiff. In Exh. C to the plaint there are details of the debit notes which were raised by the second plaintiff upon the second defendant from time to time. A copy of a debit note is annexed at Exh. D. The first defendant by a letter dated 20th April, 1995 forwarded a cheque in the amount of Rs. 4,61,463/- towards part payment of the amounts payable to the second plaintiff. In so far as the second defendant is concerned, by a letter dated 7th November, 1996, it sought to inform the second plaintiff of its financial difficulties as a reason for the delayed payment of its outstandings. A cheque dated 31st July, 1996 issued by the second defendant towards the partial payment of the dues came to be dishonoured. An Advocates notice was issued to the second defendant on behalf of the plaintiffs on 7th July, 1997 and once again to both the defendants on 15th May, 1998. A Statement of account of the dues outstanding as against different bills/invoices of the plaintiffs were annexed to the said notice. The statement appended to the said letter dated 15th May, 1998 provided the break up of the dues, which were payable to the first plaintiff and to the second plaintiff separately. The statement also displayed the payments which were received on behalf of each one of the two defendants.