Supreme Court of India
ARIES ADVERTISING BUREAU versus C.T. DEVARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS.
- Decided
- 22 February 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] 2 S.C.R. 251 · 1995 INSC 128
- Also cited as
- AIR 1995 SC 2251
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in A.S. No. 226nl dated February 14, 1995. The facts lie in a short compass. The appellant-plaintiff had advertised for the circus run by the second defendant Balakrishnan. It laid a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 27,000 and odd towards the advertisement charges impleading the respondent, as first defendant, alongwith Balakrishnan as second defendant. Balakrishnan remained ex-parte and an ex-pane decree against him became final. We are concerned only with the liability of the first defendant- respondent, C.T. Devaraj. The trial court decreed the suit against him on finding that there was privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent. The High Court, on appeal, found that there is no privity of contract. Though the appellant, relying on s. 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, (for short 'the Act') attempted to fasten the liability on the respondent, it was found that the respondent did not derive any benefit under the contract between him and Balakrishnan. On the other hand, he was a financier to run the circus which had incurred a huge loss. Consequently, it was held that the benefit of s. 70 of the Act was inapplicable. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the suit against the respondent was dismissed. Thus this appeal.
pp. 252–253, margin E
Shri Sampath, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously oontended that in view of the agreement (Ex. A-3) executed by the respondent and Balakrishnan wherein Clause ( 4) states about the respondent undertaking to pay the advertisement charges, he is bound to pay the same to the ppellant. Proposal sent for advertisement by the appellant was admittedly approved by the respondent. Thereby there emerged a concluded oral contract between appellant and the respondent. It is also contended that since the respondent agreed to receive the benefit of 30% of the profit from the income derived by running of the circus, he had derived benefit pursuant to the advertisement made by the appellant and, therefore, the respondent is bound to reimburse the appellant by operation of s. 70 of the Act.
p. 253, margin B
We find no force in the contentions. The agreement Ex. A-3 is bilateral between the respondent and Balakrishanan. The appellant is not a party to the agreement. So, there is no privity of contract between the appellant and Devaraj. It is also an admitted fact that though proposal sent for the advertisement by the appellant was approved by Devaraj, he did it on behalf of Balakrishnan. The approval sought by the appellant was not given in writing so as to bind Devaraj with the expenditure incurred for advertisement. The High Court had considered this aspect of the matter and concluded that in the absence of any approval in writing by the respondent, reliance upon self-serving statement made by the appellant in this regard, was not sufficient to fasten the liability on the re_spondent for the expenditure incurred by Balakrishnan for advertisement to run the circus.
p. 253, margin D
Section 70 of the Act provides thus : "Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore,
p. 253, margin G
the thing so done or delivered." Admittedly, the appellant had not done anything directly to the respondent. On the other hand, it had done the advertisement to benefit the seeond defendant Balakrishnan only, who had run the circus. The High Court found as a fact tliat the respondent did not derive any benefit out of the contract entered into between the respondent and Balakrishnan. The respondent was. only a financier to run the circus and pursuant to the contract the respondent had suffered huge loss. In the absence of any benefit derived by the respondent pursuant to the advertisement made by the appellant, s. 70 is not attracted to the facts of this case.
p. 254, margin A
Therefore, the High Court was right in negativing the relief to the appellant, either becalise of lack of the privity of the contract or due to non-applicability of s. 70 of the Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but without costs. · G.T. Appeal dismissed.
p. 254, margin C