Proprietary concerns may sue through proprietors regardless of registration; email admissions by authorized employees bind restructured successor entities.

The Petitioner, a Multi System Operator (MSO) and proprietary concern of Mr. Nirlep Kumar, entered into a channel placement agreement with the Respondent (Broadcaster) for the channel "News X" for the period 20.03.2010 to 31.07.2011

While the first period was undisputed and paid for, the Petitioner alleged a second agreement was formed for 01.08.2011 to 31.07.2012

The Petitioner claimed it continued placing the channel based on assurances from Respondent’s employees (Mr. Gaurav Kohli and others) via email, but the Respondent failed to pay the outstanding fee of Rs. 29,97,387/-

The Respondent contended the second agreement was a unilateral offer never officially accepted, and that emails from former employees were collusive acts prior to a management takeover

1. Whether the petition is maintainable given the Petitioner is an unregistered proprietary firm?

2. Whether the petition is barred by the three-year limitation period?

3. Whether a binding placement agreement existed for the period 01.08.2011 to 31.07.2012?

4. Whether the emails sent by Mr. Gaurav Kohli were binding on the Respondent?

The Tribunal applied the principle from Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadhesh Kumar, clarifying that a proprietary concern is not a separate legal entity and a suit by it is effectively by the proprietor

Regarding the burden of proof, it relied on Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (onus lies on the party asserting a fact) and State of J & K v. Hindustan Forest Co. (plaintiff must stand on their own evidence)

The standard of proof applied was the "preponderance of probabilities" applicable to civil proceedings

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was applied regarding the admissibility of electronic records (ledgers and emails)

The Tribunal rejected the maintainability objection, noting that the proprietor sued in the name of the business, which is legally permissible

On limitation, it found the cause of action arose upon the legal notice and deactivation in December 2012, making the 2014 petition timely

Regarding the disputed contract, the Tribunal found that the Respondent purchased the non-judicial stamp paper for the second agreement, evidenced by the Respondent's seal on the document

It further observed that the Respondent’s witness joined after the disputed period and could not effectively rebut the Petitioner's evidence

The emails from Mr. Kohli and other admitted employees (Mr. Anuj and Mr. Praveer) were deemed binding as they acted on behalf of the company at the material time, and the Respondent failed to prove the alleged "connivance" or "mischief"

The continued voluntary placement of the channel, coupled with the purchase of stamp papers, established a contract via conduct and preponderance of probabilities

It held that a binding agreement existed and the Respondent defaulted on payments

The Petition was decreed with costs; the Respondent was directed to pay Rs. 29,97,387/- towards outstanding placement fees. Additionally, the Tribunal awarded simple interest at 9% per annum pendente lite and future interest until the actual date of payment