Court rules in favor of plaintiff in contract dispute; defendant liable for commercial rates.

The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation due to a partial payment made within the extended period. It was determined that the contract was with defendant No. 2 and not defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 was found liable to pay commercial rates instead of DAVP rates. The plaintiff was awarded the balance principal amount for work done, along with pre-suit and future interest. No damages were granted due to lack of credible evidence. The suit was decreed for the specified amount with interest, to be distributed by a Receiver to the respective publications.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation
2. Validity and existence of a contract
3. Entitlement to DAVP rates
4. Payment for work done
5. Entitlement to interest
6. Damages

Summary:

Issue No. 1: Limitation
The suit is not barred by limitation as a part payment of Rs. 59,82,166.80/- was made on 30.1.1997, extending the limitation period u/s 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The suit filed on 25.1.2000 is within the extended limitation period.

Issue Nos. 2, 2(a), and 2(b): Validity and Existence of a Contract
The court held that the contract was with defendant No. 2 (TCIL) and not with defendant No. 1 (Union of India). The reasons include:
- Invoices and letters were addressed to defendant No. 2.
- Defendant No. 2 made part payments and issued TDS certificates.
- Internal notes and correspondence indicated defendant No. 2's liability.
- Defendant No. 2 admitted to being controlled by defendant No. 1 and acting on its directions.

Issue No. 3: Entitlement to DAVP Rates
The court concluded that defendant No. 2 was liable to pay commercial rates, not DAVP rates, as:
- Defendant No. 2 had previously issued advertisements through accredited agencies at commercial rates.
- The advertisements were published through INS accredited agencies, which provided discounted rates.
- No communication was made to the plaintiff before publication that only DAVP rates would be paid.

Issue No. 4: Payment for Work Done
The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to the balance principal amount of Rs. 1,36,01,743.20/- from defendant No. 2 for the work done.

Issue No. 5: Entitlement to Interest
The court granted pre-suit interest at 6% per annum simple from 1.2.1997 till the filing of the suit, and pendente lite and future interest at the same rate till payment.

Additional Issue: Damages
The court refused to grant any damages as the plaintiff failed to lead credible evidence on the aspect of damages.

Relief:
The suit is decreed for Rs. 1,36,01,743.20/- with interest at 6% per annum simple from 1.2.1997 till the filing of the suit, and pendente lite and future interest at the same rate till payment. The amount payable by defendant No. 2 will be deposited in the court and distributed by a Receiver to the respective publications. The suit is disposed of with these observations.

---