Supreme Court of India
PREM NATH MOTORS LTD. versus ANURAG MITTAL
- Decided
- 14 November 2008
- Judges listed
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [2008] 16 S.C.R. 45 · 2008 INSC 1302
- Also cited as
- (2009) 16 SCC 274
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
Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.
- B. L. KASHYAP AND SONS LTD versus M/S JMS STEELS AND POWER CORPORATION & ANR.
- THE NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. versus NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD & ORS.
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.
1. Leave granted.
p. 46, margin H
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by A Monopolies Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi, (in short 'Commission') dismissing the application filed by the present appellant.
p. 47
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
p. 47
An International Car Manufacturing Company i.e. M/s. Automobiles Peugeot of France had entered into a joint venture agreement with manufactures of Premier Cars in India which had a network of dealers spread all over the country, for the purpose of manufacturing and sale of Peugeot 309 models car in India.
p. 47
The original agreement of M/s. Automobiles Peugeot of France was with Mis. Kalyan Motors Company Limited which was incorporated during 1994. Subsequently, M/s. Kalyan Motors was named Pal Peugeot Limited/Premier Automobiles Limited.
p. 47
Thereafter M/s Pal Peugeot Limited gave advertisements in various newspapers, inviting application for Priority-cum- Registration of Peugeot 309 cars. The individual who were interested in purchasing the said car, applied to M/s Pal Peugeot Limited at: Kalyan Shil Road, Manpada, Dombilvli- 421204, Dist!. Thane, Maharashtra.
p. 47
Some individuals like the respondent No.1 submitted their application at Prem Nath Motors Ltd. with a cheque of F Rs.25,000/- in the name of Pal Peugeot.
p. 47
It is pertinent to point out that Prem Nath Motors Limited was dealer of Pal Motors, with whom the Peugeot Company had entered into an agreement. Petitioner before Commission had nothing to do with the advertisement, in response to which the individuals had applied for the said car. In fact, the individuals had submitted their applications at Prem Nath Motor's office only due to above reasons.
p. 47
It is also necessary to add that the cheque submitted by H A the individual person, whoever was interested in purchasing the said car was given in the name of Mis Pal Peugeot Limited and Prem Nath Motors Limited, i.e. the appellant herein had no other role except to send the same to Mis Pal Peugeot Limited.
pp. 47–48
But the individual i.e. the respondent No.1 herein who seems to had applied for "Peugeot 309 Car" did not get the ' delivery and, therefore, asked for the refund of the booking amount of Rs.25,0001-. As the said amount was not refunded,
p. 48
the respondent No.1 filed a Claim Petition under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (in short the 'Act') on the grounds of failures on the part of respondents to refund the said amount.
p. 48
The appellant's stand before the Commission was that the liability, if any, was of Mis. Pal Peugeot to pay to respondent. According to the appellant it was only the agent/dealer of said party.
p. 48, margin C
4. Section 230 oflhe Contract Act categorically makes it clear that an agent is' not liable for the acts of a disclosed
p. 48, margin C
•' principal subject to a contract of the contrary. No such contract to the contrary has been pleaded. An identical issue was considered by this Court in the case of Mar~e Contained Services South Pvt. Ltd. vs. Go Go Garments IR 1999 (SC)
p. 48, margin C
80 where a similar .order passed under the Consumer F Protection Act was sef aside by this Court. It was held that by ""
p. 48, margin E
virtue of Section 230 the agent could not be sued when the principal had been disclosed.
p. 48, margin E
5. A similar view; has been expressed by a three judge Bench of this Court iri Civil Appeal 665312005 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.1956212004.
p. 48, margin E
6. The appeal is allowed accordingly. K.K.T. Appeal allowed.
p. 48, margin E
..,
p. 48, margin E