//
you're reading...
legal issues

Contract Act, 1872 – s. 230 – Booking of car pursuant to advertisement by Car manufacturing company – On non-allotment of car, refund of booking amount sought – On failure thereof, claim before MRTP Commission – Dealer of the company making application that it was not liable to refund being only an agent of the Company – Dismissal of application – On appeal held: Agent is not liable for the acts of a disclosed principal subject to contract to the contrary – On facts, no contract to the contrary pleaded – Hence, dealer company not liable to refund the booking amount – Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 – s. 12-B. An international car manufacturing company entered into agreement for manufacture and sale of a particular model of a car with an Indian Car manufacturing company. Appellant company was the dealer/agent of the Indian Company. In pursuance of an advertisement by the contracting companies, respondent No.1 applied for allotment of a car with the booking amount. On non- delivery of the car, respondent No. 1 sough refund of the amount. On failure thereof, he filed a petition u/s. 12-B of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. Appellant-company filed application before MRTP Commission on the plea that, it being only an agent/dealer was not liable to refund the amount. Application was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. =Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: Section 230 of the Contract Act categorically makes it clear that an agent is not liable for the acts of a disclosed principal, subject to a contract of the contrary. No such contract to the contrary has been pleaded. Appellant-company was dealer of the Indian Company, with whom the International Company had entered into an agreement. The appellant had nothing to do with the advertisement, in response to which the individuals had applied for the said car. The cheque submitted by the individual person, whoever was interested in purchasing the said car was given in the name of the Indian Car manufacturing Company and the appellant Company had no other role except to send the same to the Indian Company. [Paras 3 and 4] [48-A; 48-E; 47-C; 47-H] Marine Contained Services South Pvt. Ltd. vs. Go Go Garments AIR 1999 (SC) 80 – relied on. Case Law Reference : AIR 1999 (SC) 80 Relied on. Para 4 Irshad Ahmad for the Appellant. P.N. Puri, Dhiraj, Sanjeev Sharma and Reeta Dewan Puri for the Respondent. =, , , 2008(14 )SCALE226 , 2008(12 )JT307

REPORTABLE
Peugeot 206CC

Image via Wikipedia



 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2008
 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.19515 of 2004)

Prem Nath Motors Ltd. ....Appellant

 Versus

Anurag Mittal ....Respondent

 JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by Monopolies

Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi, (in short

`Commission') dismissing the application filed by the present appellant.

 1
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

 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.

 The original agreement of M/s. Automobiles Peugeot of France was

with M/s. Kalyan Motors Company Limited which was incorporated during

1994. Subsequently, M/s. Kalyan Motors was named Pal Peugeot

Limited/Premier Automobiles Limited.

 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, Distt. Thane, Maharashtra.

 2
 Some individuals like the respondent No.1 submitted their application

at Prem Nath Motors Ltd. with a cheque of Rs.25,000/- in the name of Pal

Peugeot.

 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.

In fact, the individuals had submitted their applications at Prem Nath

Motor's office only due to above reasons.

 It is also necessary to add that the cheque submitted by the individual

person, whoever was interested in purchasing the said car was given in the

name of M/s Pal Peugeot Limited and Prem Nath Motors Limited, i.e. the

appellant herein had no other role except to send the same to M/s Pal

Peugeot Limited.

 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.25,000/-. As the said amount

 3
was not refunded, 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.

 The appellant's stand before the Commission was that the liability, if

any, was of M/s. Pal Peugeot to pay to respondent. According to the

appellant it was only the agent/dealer of said party.

4. Section 230 of the Contract Act categorically makes it clear that an

agent is not liable for the acts of a disclosed 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 Marine Contained

Services South Pvt. Ltd. vs. Go Go Garments AIR 1999 (SC) 80 where a

similar order passed under the Consumer Protection Act was set aside by

this Court. It was held that by virtue of Section 230 the agent could not be

sued when the principal had been disclosed.

5. A similar view has been expressed by a three judge Bench of this

Court in Civil Appeal 6653/2005 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.19562/2004.

 4
6. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

 ...........................................J.
 (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

 ...........................................J.
 (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi:
November 14, 2008 5

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,474 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: