- (1.) There is no dispute that at the behest of the company, the petitioner published several advertisements pertaining to the now defunct Mahua channel by way of hoardings.
(2.) The claim of the petitioner is to the tune of Rs.3.12 crore and the company does not dispute such figure, particularly, since the company has applied for winding -up of Mahua Media Private Limited before the Delhi High Court and in the relevant proceedings has made a prayer for impleading the petitioning creditor herein since the petitioning creditor has a claim of about Rs.3.12 crore for advertising the Mahua channel. The company has also sought a direction on Mahua Media Private Limited in the Delhi proceedings for the payment of the sum of Rs.3.12 crore to be made directly by Mahua Media Private Limited to the petitioning creditor herein.
(3.) There is no certainty as to whether any payment may be forthcoming from Mahua Media Private Limited to the company herein or to the petitioning creditor directly. In law, upon an advertisement agency requesting any publisher to publish advertisements on behalf of any client of the advertising agency, it is the client which is regarded as the principal debtor on account of the advertisement charges and the advertising agency is in the position of a guarantor so that the publisher may proceed against both or either.;