JYOTI JAIN Vs. ABP PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a money decree passed by Justice Debangsu Basak on 3rd September, 2014. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.40,60,139/- towards outstanding advertising bills from the defendants jointly and severally. The plaintiff contends that the defendant no.1 is an advertising agency accredited with the Indian Newspaper Society (INS). The defendant no.1 carries on business under the name and style of M/s. Parichay Advertising as the sole proprietor thereof. According to the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 placed bookings for advertisements between March, 2000 and March, 2001 in two newspapers owned by the plaintiff namely, The Telegraph and Ananda Bazar Patrika for release of advertisements relating to the defendant no.2. The defendant no.2 is a client of the defendant no.1 for whom the said advertisement was issued. Written instructions for release of such advertisements were issued by the defendant no.1. The release orders are from the period 14th December, 2000 to 13th March, 2001. In terms of such release orders, the plaintiff issued advertisements in its two newspapers. The rate of publication was agreed upon. Subsequent to the advertisements being published, the plaintiff raised invoices on and from 31st January, 2001 till 31st March, 2001 on the defendants. The value of such invoices aggregate to Rs.43,05,420/-.

(2.) In view of non-payment, the plaintiff made complaints to the Indian Newspaper Society. The defendant no.1 is a member of the said society. INS verified that there could be no dispute with regard to the invoices raised by the plaintiff. INS had a bank guarantee on account of defendant no.1. Admittedly, the bank guarantee was invoked and INS has released a sum of Rs. 4,25,214/- on account of the defendant no.1 and released the said payment in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff gave credit to the defendants for the said sum. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed the balance amount of the invoice together with interest thereof from the defendants.

(3.) The defendant no.1 has filed its written statement. In her written statement, the defendant no.1 claimed that she was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Parichay Advertising. It is alleged that she entered into a partnership with one Mr. Sanjay Bansal on 20th April, 2000 and thereby the proprietorship concern of the defendant no.1 was converted into a partnership firm of the defendant no.1 and Sanjay Bansal in equal share. The defendant no.1 alleged to have issued a notice dated 14th October, 2000 on Mr. Bansal expressing her intention to withdraw from the said partnership and not to continue the partnership business with effect from 1st November, 2000. It is alleged that Mr. Bansal by his letter dated 1st November, 2000 confirmed the dissolution of the partnership firm and continuing the said business, namely, M/s. Parichay Advertising as sole proprietor thereof with effect from 1st November, 2000. The defendant no.1 further alleged that the deed of dissolution of partnership was executed between her and Mr. Sanjay Bansal on 1st November, 2000 and consequently Mr. Sanjay Bansal became liable for all liabilities in respect of M/s. Parichay Advertising. The defendant no.1 claimed that Mr. Bansal had indicated the change of status of M/s. Parichay Advertising to INS by a letter dated 22nd June, 2001. In view of the dissolution of the partnership firm, the defendant no.1 claimed that she is not liable. The defendant no.2 did not enter appearance in the suit.