PREM NATH MOTORS LTD. versus ANURAG MITTAL

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 45 · Decided: 14-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 16 S.C.R. 45 
PREM NATH MOTORS LTD. 
A 
v. 
ANURAG MITI AL 
(Civil Appeal No. 6656 of 2008) 
NOVEMBER 14, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Contract Act, 1872 - s. 230 - Booking of car pursuant 
to advertisement by Car manufacturing company - On non- c 
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 
D 
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. 
12-8. 
E 
An international car manufacturing company entered 
into agreement for manufacture and sale of•. a particular 
model of a car with an Indian Cai' manufacturing 
company. Appellant company was the dealer/agent of the 
Indian Company. 
F 
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 
G 
). 
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 
45 
H 
46 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A the amount. Application was dismissed. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Section 230 of the Contract Act categorically 
B 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 lntern'ational Company had entered into 
c an agreement. The appellant had nothing to do with the 
advertisement, in response to which the individuals had 
applied for the said l:ar. The cheque submitted by the 
individual person, whoever was interested in purchasing 
the said car was given in the name of the Indian Car 
D manufacturing Company and the appellant Company had 
no other role except to send the same to the Indian 
Company. [Para.s 3 and 4) [48-A; 48-E; 47-C; 47-H] 
Marine Contained; Services South Pvt. Ltd. vs. Go Go 
Gannents AIR 1999 (SC) 80 - relied on. 
, 
E 
Case Law Reference : 
' 
AIR1999 (SC) 80 
Relied on. 
Para 4 
CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal. No. 
F 6656 of 2008. 
G 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 16.4.2004 of the 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New 
Delhi in Review Petition 14 of 2004 in C.A. No. 502 of 2000. 
lrshad Ahmad for the Appellant. 
P.N. Puri, Dhiraj, Sanjeev Sharma and Reeta Dewan Puri 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted. 
PREM NATH MOTORS LTD. v. ANURAG MITIAL 
47 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
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. 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
B 
" 
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 c 
in India. 
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 
D 
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 E 
interested in purchasing the said car, applied to M/s Pal 
Peugeot Limited at: Kalyan Shil Road, Manpada, Dombilvli-
421204, Dist!. Thane, Maharashtra. 
"' 
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. 
It is pertinent to point out that Prem N
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.