https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792725 Where the plaint disclosed that the supply contract was with the principal buyer and that the first defendant was only a forwarding agent in the transportation arrangement, the Delhi HC held that no privity of contract existed between the appellant and the agent. On that footing, the agent could not be made liable for the buyer's default and was properly deleted from the array of parties as a non-necessary and improper party under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. The Court treated the dispute as one lying, if at all, against the contracting principal, and found that further discussion on limitation or rejection of plaint was unnecessary once deletion was the real issue. en-us Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jun 2026 08:50:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792725 Where the plaint disclosed that the supply contract was with the principal buyer and that the first defendant was only a forwarding agent in the transportation arrangement, the Delhi HC held that no privity of contract existed between the appellant and the agent. On that footing, the agent could not be made liable for the buyer's default and was properly deleted from the array of parties as a non-necessary and improper party under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. The Court treated the dispute as one lying, if at all, against the contracting principal, and found that further discussion on limitation or rejection of plaint was unnecessary once deletion was the real issue. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792725