Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 2/2009
UOI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Kirtimaan Singh and Mr.Waize
Ali Noor, Advs.
versus
RANJAN KHANNA ..... Respondent
Through: Dr.Charu Wali Khanna and
Mr.Dharmender Singh Pal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI (ORAL)
O R D E R
11.08.2017
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the
judgment and decree dated 09.09.2008 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/
respondent for recovery of money has been decreed in favour the
plaintiff/respondent and against the defendant/appellant for recovery
of sum of Rs.3,07,758/- with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of
the suit till its realization.
2. The facts enumerating from the plaint filed before the Court
below are that the plaintiff/respondent had claimed a sum of
Rs.3,35,314/- as the balance principal amount which according to him
was remaining unpaid by and on behalf of the defendants and has also
RFA 2/2009 Page 1 of 7
been claiming an amount of Rs.1,40,831.88 paisa as interest on this
unpaid amount calculated @ 18% pa from 03.11.2001 to 03.03.2004,
i.e. 28 months. The plaintiff also claimed pendentelite and future
interest @ 18% p.a. The plaintiff/respondent is engaged in the
business of advertising and publicity. Defendant nos.1 to 4/Appellants
are Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises and its
officials. The plaintiff/respondent stated that the defendant/appellant,
in the month of October, 2001 engaged the plaintiff/respondent for
advertising needs of the concerned Ministry. The plaintiff/respondent
was contacted by the appellant to design and publish advertisement for
publicity of completion of two years of NDA Government, and on
having received the order by the defendants; the respondent released
the advertisement for publication. In relation to the above, the
respondent raised bills for an amount of Rs.4,31,775/- (Bill no.610)
and Rs.3,07,758/- (Bill No.611) totaling to an amount of Rs.
7,39,533/-. The respondent was allegedly informed by the appellants
that there were some technical problems which were being sorted out
at the end of the appellants, and the respondent claimed that after a
period of about 2 years, the appellants paid only a part amount vide
order dated 04.08.2003 for a sum of Rs.4,12,679/- contending it as full
and final payment of the Bill No.610 and 611. A legal notice was
thereafter sent by the respondent, seeking payment of the balance
amount.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant/
defendants, it was admitted that the defendant no.2 is the Under
RFA 2/2009 Page 2 of 7
Secretary with whom the respondent/plaintiff was in communication
for finalization of the advertisement for publicity of completion of two
years of NDA Govt. and the said order for the release of the
advertisement had been issued by Defendant no.3. It has been further
stated that the respondent/plaintiff agency had preferred two bills, one
of Rs.4,31,775/- (Bill no.610) and Rs.3,07,758/- (Bill No.611). While
formal bill was preferred to Department of Heavy Industries, the other
bill was preferred to M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd by enclosing a copy of the
letter of the Department dated 13.10.2001. The appellant/defendant
stated that the amount payable to the plaintiff agency was only Rs.
4,12,679/- and before releasing the said amount, the plaintiff agency
was asked to show cause of why action should not be taken against
them for producing the bill to Maruti Udyog Ltd. Since, plaintiff was
pressing for the release of the said payment, a payment of Rs.
4,12,679/- was released by the Department to the plaintiff agency
subject to the condition that it was a full and final settlement and no
further claim would be entertained towards the same.
4. Replications to the written statements were filed on behalf of
the defendants. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following
issues were framed by the Court below :
(1)Whether the total expenditure incurred by defendant for
advertisement was limited to Rs.4.5 lacs as per letter dated
13.10.2001? (OPD)
(2)Whether the amount as shown in Bill No. 611 submitted by
plaintiff was payable by Maruti Udyog Limited? (OPD)
RFA 2/2009 Page 3 of 7
(3)To what amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the
defendant and, if so, at what rate and for what period? (OPD)
(4)Relief.
5. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined three witnesses
namely PW1-Ranjan Khanna, proprietor of the plaintiff firm, PW2-
Kamal Bhatia, manager of the plaintiff firm and PW3- Deepak Jain,
handwriting expert. The defendant on the other hand, examined two
witnesses, DW1-O.P.Verma and DW2-A.P.Pathak.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree in the present
suit, the present appeal has been filed. Argument advanced by the
counsel for the appellants is that they do not deny the order (Ex
PW1/2) placed with respect to the publishing of the said
advertisements with the plaintiff agency. The appellants in furtherance
of the order placed with the plaintiff agency wrote a letter (Ex PW1/4)
dated 13.10.2001, confirming the publication of the said advertisement
in newspapers on 15.10.2001. It is further argued that they had
specifically stated that the advertisement was to be published keeping
the budget of Rs.4.5 lacs in mind, and the same was not to be
exceeded by the plaintiff agency . It was further contended that Maruti
Udyog Limited was liable to clear bill No.611 and thus the appellants
hold no liability to clear the same.
7. On the other hand, argument advanced by the counsel for the
plaintiff/respondent is that after having received the order for
publication, the plaintiff firm was apprised that it would not be
RFA 2/2009 Page 4 of 7
possible to publish the said advertisements within the given limit of
Rs.4.5 lacs. The advertisements were published on specific order
placed by the appellants and the appellants were liable to make the
payment of the bills raised. There is no infirmity or illegality in the
judgment and decree passed by the Court below.
8. Arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties were heard
and I have gone through the evidence, documents and material placed
on record.
9. With respect to the fact that the said order of publishing the
advertisement could not be carried out within the apparent budget
limit set by the appellants, the same has been corroborated by DW2 in
his cross examination that PW-2 Kamal Bhatia had discussed with
him that the approved advertisements could not be printed within the
price limit of Rs.4.5 lacs. Thereafter, after having placed the initial
order via fax message with the plaintiff agency for publication of
advertisement in the prescribed newspapers on 15.10.2001, a fresh
order (Ex.PW1/3) with an amendment was issued in which no limit of
Rs.4.5 lacs was put up.
10. Appellant/defendant witness DW-1 Sh.O.P. Verma during his
cross-examination has stated that the dictation of document Ex.DW1/1
(Ex.PW1/5) was given by him and it was given to Sh.A.K. Pathak for
onward communication to the plaintiff. The said communication was
sent through a fax message to the plaintiff. Note on Ex.PW1/5
encircled red was written by him. He further stated that document
Ex.PW1/5 as corrected by officer on special duty attached to the
RFA 2/2009 Page 5 of 7
Minister. He further stated that the rates of DAVP were not known to
him at the time of executing document Ex.PW1/5. He further stated
that when letter Ex.PW1/5 was given, the words in red encircled were
not written.
11. Thus, it is evident from the document placed on record that the
budget limit as mentioned by the appellants /respondents was with
respect to the initial order only, placed vide Ex. PW1/1. The
subsequent amended order Ex.PW1/3 did not carry any such condition
of a budget limit and thus, the appellants shall not be precluded from
paying the entire amount due in respect of both bills No.610 and 611.
12. Further, with respect to the issue whether Maruti Udyog
Limited is due to pay the amount of bill no.611 to the
plaintiff/respondent, the same is clear from the written statement filed
by Maruti Udyog Limited wherein they have stated that there is no
privity of contract between the plaintiff/respondent and Maruti Udyog
Limited. It has further been submitted that the plaintiff/respondent had
allegedly issued the bill at the alleged instance of the defendants/
appellants who had declined to pay the said pending bill. From the
material placed on record, it becomes evidently clear that the plaintiff
agency had no transaction for the said order of publishing
advertisements with Maruti Udyog Limited and hence any such bill
shall not be enforceable against Maruti Udyog Limited. Contention of
the appellant/defendant is that they were not liable to made the
payment of said bill as two copies of the bills were sent by the
plaintiff/respondent, one to the concerned Ministry and other to Maruti
RFA 2/2009 Page 6 of 7
Udyog Limited. The contention of the plaintiff/respondent to this
effect is that the original bill was sent to the Ministry concerned and
on their asking a copy of the bill was sent to Maruti Udyog Limited.
Therefore, Bill no.611 cannot give a cause of action against Maruti
Udyog Limited and the same was subject to be cleared by the
appellants with respect to their placing the order of publishing
advertisements through the plaintiff agency/respondent on 15.10.2001.
It is an admitted fact that the advertisements published by the plaintiff
agency were ordered by the appellants/defendants and they cannot
deny their liability to make the payment for the same.
13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the issues have been rightly decided by the Court below
in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. There is no error
in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and the same is
accordingly upheld.
14. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 11, 2017
dd
RFA 2/2009 Page 7 of 7
+ RFA 2/2009
UOI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Kirtimaan Singh and Mr.Waize
Ali Noor, Advs.
versus
RANJAN KHANNA ..... Respondent
Through: Dr.Charu Wali Khanna and
Mr.Dharmender Singh Pal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI (ORAL)
O R D E R
11.08.2017
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the
judgment and decree dated 09.09.2008 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/
respondent for recovery of money has been decreed in favour the
plaintiff/respondent and against the defendant/appellant for recovery
of sum of Rs.3,07,758/- with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of
the suit till its realization.
2. The facts enumerating from the plaint filed before the Court
below are that the plaintiff/respondent had claimed a sum of
Rs.3,35,314/- as the balance principal amount which according to him
was remaining unpaid by and on behalf of the defendants and has also
RFA 2/2009 Page 1 of 7
been claiming an amount of Rs.1,40,831.88 paisa as interest on this
unpaid amount calculated @ 18% pa from 03.11.2001 to 03.03.2004,
i.e. 28 months. The plaintiff also claimed pendentelite and future
interest @ 18% p.a. The plaintiff/respondent is engaged in the
business of advertising and publicity. Defendant nos.1 to 4/Appellants
are Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises and its
officials. The plaintiff/respondent stated that the defendant/appellant,
in the month of October, 2001 engaged the plaintiff/respondent for
advertising needs of the concerned Ministry. The plaintiff/respondent
was contacted by the appellant to design and publish advertisement for
publicity of completion of two years of NDA Government, and on
having received the order by the defendants; the respondent released
the advertisement for publication. In relation to the above, the
respondent raised bills for an amount of Rs.4,31,775/- (Bill no.610)
and Rs.3,07,758/- (Bill No.611) totaling to an amount of Rs.
7,39,533/-. The respondent was allegedly informed by the appellants
that there were some technical problems which were being sorted out
at the end of the appellants, and the respondent claimed that after a
period of about 2 years, the appellants paid only a part amount vide
order dated 04.08.2003 for a sum of Rs.4,12,679/- contending it as full
and final payment of the Bill No.610 and 611. A legal notice was
thereafter sent by the respondent, seeking payment of the balance
amount.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant/
defendants, it was admitted that the defendant no.2 is the Under
RFA 2/2009 Page 2 of 7
Secretary with whom the respondent/plaintiff was in communication
for finalization of the advertisement for publicity of completion of two
years of NDA Govt. and the said order for the release of the
advertisement had been issued by Defendant no.3. It has been further
stated that the respondent/plaintiff agency had preferred two bills, one
of Rs.4,31,775/- (Bill no.610) and Rs.3,07,758/- (Bill No.611). While
formal bill was preferred to Department of Heavy Industries, the other
bill was preferred to M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd by enclosing a copy of the
letter of the Department dated 13.10.2001. The appellant/defendant
stated that the amount payable to the plaintiff agency was only Rs.
4,12,679/- and before releasing the said amount, the plaintiff agency
was asked to show cause of why action should not be taken against
them for producing the bill to Maruti Udyog Ltd. Since, plaintiff was
pressing for the release of the said payment, a payment of Rs.
4,12,679/- was released by the Department to the plaintiff agency
subject to the condition that it was a full and final settlement and no
further claim would be entertained towards the same.
4. Replications to the written statements were filed on behalf of
the defendants. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following
issues were framed by the Court below :
(1)Whether the total expenditure incurred by defendant for
advertisement was limited to Rs.4.5 lacs as per letter dated
13.10.2001? (OPD)
(2)Whether the amount as shown in Bill No. 611 submitted by
plaintiff was payable by Maruti Udyog Limited? (OPD)
RFA 2/2009 Page 3 of 7
(3)To what amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the
defendant and, if so, at what rate and for what period? (OPD)
(4)Relief.
5. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined three witnesses
namely PW1-Ranjan Khanna, proprietor of the plaintiff firm, PW2-
Kamal Bhatia, manager of the plaintiff firm and PW3- Deepak Jain,
handwriting expert. The defendant on the other hand, examined two
witnesses, DW1-O.P.Verma and DW2-A.P.Pathak.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree in the present
suit, the present appeal has been filed. Argument advanced by the
counsel for the appellants is that they do not deny the order (Ex
PW1/2) placed with respect to the publishing of the said
advertisements with the plaintiff agency. The appellants in furtherance
of the order placed with the plaintiff agency wrote a letter (Ex PW1/4)
dated 13.10.2001, confirming the publication of the said advertisement
in newspapers on 15.10.2001. It is further argued that they had
specifically stated that the advertisement was to be published keeping
the budget of Rs.4.5 lacs in mind, and the same was not to be
exceeded by the plaintiff agency . It was further contended that Maruti
Udyog Limited was liable to clear bill No.611 and thus the appellants
hold no liability to clear the same.
7. On the other hand, argument advanced by the counsel for the
plaintiff/respondent is that after having received the order for
publication, the plaintiff firm was apprised that it would not be
RFA 2/2009 Page 4 of 7
possible to publish the said advertisements within the given limit of
Rs.4.5 lacs. The advertisements were published on specific order
placed by the appellants and the appellants were liable to make the
payment of the bills raised. There is no infirmity or illegality in the
judgment and decree passed by the Court below.
8. Arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties were heard
and I have gone through the evidence, documents and material placed
on record.
9. With respect to the fact that the said order of publishing the
advertisement could not be carried out within the apparent budget
limit set by the appellants, the same has been corroborated by DW2 in
his cross examination that PW-2 Kamal Bhatia had discussed with
him that the approved advertisements could not be printed within the
price limit of Rs.4.5 lacs. Thereafter, after having placed the initial
order via fax message with the plaintiff agency for publication of
advertisement in the prescribed newspapers on 15.10.2001, a fresh
order (Ex.PW1/3) with an amendment was issued in which no limit of
Rs.4.5 lacs was put up.
10. Appellant/defendant witness DW-1 Sh.O.P. Verma during his
cross-examination has stated that the dictation of document Ex.DW1/1
(Ex.PW1/5) was given by him and it was given to Sh.A.K. Pathak for
onward communication to the plaintiff. The said communication was
sent through a fax message to the plaintiff. Note on Ex.PW1/5
encircled red was written by him. He further stated that document
Ex.PW1/5 as corrected by officer on special duty attached to the
RFA 2/2009 Page 5 of 7
Minister. He further stated that the rates of DAVP were not known to
him at the time of executing document Ex.PW1/5. He further stated
that when letter Ex.PW1/5 was given, the words in red encircled were
not written.
11. Thus, it is evident from the document placed on record that the
budget limit as mentioned by the appellants /respondents was with
respect to the initial order only, placed vide Ex. PW1/1. The
subsequent amended order Ex.PW1/3 did not carry any such condition
of a budget limit and thus, the appellants shall not be precluded from
paying the entire amount due in respect of both bills No.610 and 611.
12. Further, with respect to the issue whether Maruti Udyog
Limited is due to pay the amount of bill no.611 to the
plaintiff/respondent, the same is clear from the written statement filed
by Maruti Udyog Limited wherein they have stated that there is no
privity of contract between the plaintiff/respondent and Maruti Udyog
Limited. It has further been submitted that the plaintiff/respondent had
allegedly issued the bill at the alleged instance of the defendants/
appellants who had declined to pay the said pending bill. From the
material placed on record, it becomes evidently clear that the plaintiff
agency had no transaction for the said order of publishing
advertisements with Maruti Udyog Limited and hence any such bill
shall not be enforceable against Maruti Udyog Limited. Contention of
the appellant/defendant is that they were not liable to made the
payment of said bill as two copies of the bills were sent by the
plaintiff/respondent, one to the concerned Ministry and other to Maruti
RFA 2/2009 Page 6 of 7
Udyog Limited. The contention of the plaintiff/respondent to this
effect is that the original bill was sent to the Ministry concerned and
on their asking a copy of the bill was sent to Maruti Udyog Limited.
Therefore, Bill no.611 cannot give a cause of action against Maruti
Udyog Limited and the same was subject to be cleared by the
appellants with respect to their placing the order of publishing
advertisements through the plaintiff agency/respondent on 15.10.2001.
It is an admitted fact that the advertisements published by the plaintiff
agency were ordered by the appellants/defendants and they cannot
deny their liability to make the payment for the same.
13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the issues have been rightly decided by the Court below
in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. There is no error
in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and the same is
accordingly upheld.
14. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 11, 2017
dd
RFA 2/2009 Page 7 of 7