IN THE COURT OF SH SANJAY SHARMA-II, ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT JUDGE-05, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT,

SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS No. 1263/17
CNR No.: DLSE01-006301-2017

Jagran Prakashan Ltd.

9 - 11 Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-III,
New Delhi-110020

….. Plaintiff

VERSUS

1. Galgotias University

2. Mr. Dhruv Galgotia, Director

Office Address:
Plot No. 2, Sector-17A,
Yamuna Express-way,
Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.- 201 306

….. Defendants

Date of Institution : 23.08.2017

Date of Arguments: 02.09.2019
Date of Judgment : 09.09.2019
JUDGEMENT

1. The plaintiff, through its Authorized Representative

Mr. Durgesh Kumar, instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.
28,65,180/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 18%
per annum against the defendants.

CS No. 1263/17 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. vs. Galgotias University 1 of 16

2. The plaintiff is a media and communication group.
The defendant No. 1 is a private university. The plaintiff is
maintaining an education web portal 'www.jagranjosh.com' for
the aspirants preparing for various competitive examination.
The plaintiff also publishes advertisements on the said website
about educational programmes and universities.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No. 1,
through the defendant No. 2, contacted the plaintiff for a digital
campaign on the said website. The defendant No. 2 sent a
purchase order dated 16.03.2015 to the plaintiff specifying the
deliverables and investment. The defendants had agreed to pay
Rs. 25,50,000/- and service tax in 5 installments of Rs.
5,10,000/- and service tax within 5 months. The plaintiff
undertaken the digital campaign on the said website for the
period from April to August, 2015. The plaintiff raised invoices
after publishing advertisements on the said website and sent
the said invoices to the defendants via e-mail, as under:
Sl. No. Invoice No. Date Amount (in Rs.)
1. JP15040032 30.04.2015 5,73,036/-
2. JP15050031 31.05.2015 5,73,036/-
3. JP15060022 30.06.2015 5,73,036/-
4. JP15070046 31.07.2015 5,73,036/-
5. JP1508007 26.08.2015 5,73,036/-

4. The case of the plaintiff is that it had sent first invoice

for the month of April, 2015 via e-mail dated 11.05.2015. The
plaintiff sent e-mail dated 11.06.2015 regarding invoice for the
month of May, 2015. The plaintiff sent reminder e-mail dated
29.06.2015 regarding the said two invoices.

CS No. 1263/17 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. vs. Galgotias University 2 of 16

5. According to the plaintiff, it continued the digital
campaign and raised final invoice vide e-mail dated 27.10.2015.
The defendants failed to make payment of the invoice amount.
The plaintiff sent demand notice dated 10.07.2017. However,
the defendants neither replied nor made payment of the invoice
amount. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit.
6. The defendants, in written statement, contended that
this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.
The case of the defendants is that no part of cause of action
arisen within the limits of territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The
defendants contended that they are not working for gain within
territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The defendants contended
that invoices issued by the plaintiff vest exclusive jurisdiction in
the Courts at Kanpur, U.P. The defendants contended that the
suit is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of the defendant No.
3 and 4.
7. The case of the defendants is that letter dated
16.03.2015 was issued to advertisement manager of the
plaintiff for exploring business prospects. The defendants
contended that the plaintiff approached them for giving a
chance to publish advertisement on the said website. The
defendants contended that the said letter was not a purchase
order. The defendants contended that the said letter was to be
followed by further understanding. The defendants contended
that there was no concluded contract between the plaintiff and
the defendants. The defendants contended that for that reason,
they had not provided specific material / content for
advertisement.

CS No. 1263/17 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. vs. Galgotias University 3 of 16

8. According to the defendants, the advertisements
published by the plaintiff on the said website were not approved
by them. The defendants contended that there was no valid
contract between them and therefore, they are not liable to pay
the suit amount.
9. In the replication, the plaintiff denied contentions
raised by the defendants in their written statement and
reiterated the averments made in the plaint.
ISSUES:
10. On the pleadings, following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for a sum of
Rs. 28,65,180/- in terms of the prayer clause (a)?
(OPP)

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what

rate and for what period?
(OPP)

(iii) Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate

the present dispute between the parties?
(OPD)

(iv) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of the parties?

(OPD)

(v) Whether there was no formal contract executed between the

parties and the plaintiff had no mandate to work on behalf of the
defendant?
(OPD)

(vi) Relief.

CS No. 1263/17 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. vs. Galgotias University 4 of 16

PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:
11. The plaintiff examined its Manager (Accounts) Mr.
Durgesh Kumar as PW-1. He deposed, on strength of affidavit
Ex.PW1/A. He relied on documents, as under:
Sl No. Description Exhibit
1. Board Resolution dated 28.07.2017 Ex.PW1/1
2. Release order alongwith proforma invoice Ex.PW1/2
details dated 16.03.2015 (colly.)
3. Invoices for the period from 30.04.2015 to Ex.PW1/3
26.08.2015 (colly.)
4. E-mails dated 11.05.2015, 11.06.2015, Ex.PW1/4
29.06.2015 and 27.10.2015 (colly.)
5. Demand notice dated 10.07.2017 alongwith Ex.PW1/5
postal receipt
6. Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act Ex.PW1/6

12. The plaintiff examined Dinesh Yadav, Sr. Account

Executive as PW-2. He deposed, on strength of affidavit
Ex.PW2/A. He relied on e-mails already exhibited as Ex.PW1/4
(colly.) and certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act
Ex.PW2/2.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE:
13. The defendant examined Nitin Kumar Gaur, Registrar
as DW-1. He deposed, on strength of affidavit Ex.DW1/1.
14. The defendant examined Dhruv Galgotia, CEO as
DW-2. He deposed, on strength of affidavit Ex.DW2/1.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
15. I have heard arguments of Mr. Jeevesh Mehta,
Advocate for the plaintiff and Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Advocate for
the defendants and examined the pleadings and documents.

CS No. 1263/17 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. vs. Galgotias University 5 of 16

ISSUE NO. 3:
16. Issue No. 3 is related to jurisdictional competence of
this Court to try the present suit and therefore, the said issue is
taken up first for adjudication.
17. Ld. Counsel for the defendants submitted that the
defendants are working for gain in Noida. She submitted that
the plaintiff approached the defendants for exploring business
prospects. She submitted that no part of cause of action arisen
within jurisdiction of this Court. She submitted that Mr. Hitesh
Batra who had approached the defendants for exploring
business prospects is not examined. She submitted that the
defendants had not made any payment to the plaintiff in Delhi.
She submitted that the invoices raised by the plaintiff vest
exclusive jurisdiction in Kanpur Courts.
18. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that no part of
cause of action has arisen in Kanpur and therefore, Kanpur
Courts have no jurisdiction. He submitted that the defendants
approached the plaintiff and placed order for digital campaign
on the said website. He submitted that the plaintiff launched
digital campaign on its website and therefore, this Court has
jurisdiction. He submitted that the plaintiff raised invoices in
Delhi and sent to the defendants. He submitted that the plaintiff
delivered services to the defendants from Delhi.
19. The plaintiff is working for gain within territorial
jurisdiction of this Court. The defendants are working for gain in
Noida. No part of cause of action arose within jurisdiction of
Kanpur Courts. Therefore, Kanpur Courts have no jurisdiction to
try the present suit.

CS No. 1263/17 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. vs. Galgotias University 6 of 16

20. Release order dated 16.03.2015 is an admitted
document. The defendants admitted the said document as
Ex.P1, during admission and denial of documents on
29.11.2017. The said order was addressed to the
Advertisement Manager, Jagran Prakashan, Okhla. The plaintiff
raised invoices regarding the digital campaign on the said
website Ex.PW1/3 (colly.) from its office 9, 11, Okhla Industrial
Estate Phase-III, New Delhi. DW-2 Dhruv Galgotia, CEO of the
defendant No. 1 has not denied that he received e-mail dated
27.10.2015 on his e-mail ID ceo@galgotiauniversity.edu.in. The
plaintiff launched digital campaign on the website. Therefore, it
cannot be said that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try
the present suit.
21. Accordingly, issue No. 3 is decided in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 4:
22. Issue No. 4 was framed on the preliminary objection
raised by the defendants in para No. 6 that the suit is bad for
misjoinder of the defendant No. 3 and 4.
23. The defendant No. 3 and 4 were deleted from the
array of the defendants on the date of registration of the suit on
23.08.2017. The defendants entered appearance on
19.09.2017. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed amended memo of
parties on 16.10.2017. It appears that the defendants were not
aware of deletion of the defendant No. 3 and 4 from the array of
the parties.
24. Issue No. 4 does not survive for adjudication and it is
answered accordingly.

CS No. 1263/17 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. vs. Galgotias University 7 of 16

ISSUE NO. 5:
25. Issue No. 5 arises from the contention of the
defendants that there was no concluded contract between the
plaintiff and the defendants.
26. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that release
order dated 16.03.2015 Ex.P1 is an admitted document. He
submitted that the defendant No. 2 categorically placed order
upon the plaintiff to publish advertisement in digital campaign
on www.jagranjosh.com alongwith deliverables and investment.
He submitted that the plaintiff undertaken the digital campaign
pursuant to the said order and raised invoices. He submitted
that the release order dated 16.03.2015 Ex.P1 is a concluded
contract. He submitted that the plaintiff raised monthly invoices
and sent them to the defendants via e-mails Ex.PW1/4 (colly.)
regarding the digital campaign undertaken on the said website
from April, 2015 to August, 2015. He submitted that the plaintiff
sent demand noticed dated 10.07.2017 Ex.PW1/5 through
registered AD post. He submitted that the defendants have
denied everything. He submitted that the defendants never
asked the plaintiff to stop the digital campaign. He submitted
that the defendants never replied the demand notice dated
10.07.2017. He submitted that e-mails sent by the plaintiff
regarding monthly invoices and final invoice Ex.PW1/4 (colly.)
to the defendants. However, the defendants never complained
that the plaintiff undertaken digital campaign for the defendants
without their permission. He submitted that letter Ex.P1 was a
concluded contract and the defendants have raised false plea
that it was to be followed by further negotiation.

CS No. 1263/17 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. vs. Galgotias University 8 of 16

27. Ld. Counsel for the defendants submitted that letter
dated 16.03.2015 Ex.P1 was not a concluded contract. She
submitted that contents for display of advertisement were to be
finalized. She submitted that the defendants had not supplied
any material for displaying on the website of the plaintiff. She
submitted that the said letter was issued by the defendants to
Marketing Manager of the plaintiff for exploring business
prospects. She submitted that the said letter was to be followed
by the further understanding. She submitted that the defendants
never entered into any contract with the plaintiff for displaying
their advertisements on the said website. She submitted that
the defendants never approved the said advertisements that
were campaigned on the website of the plaintiff. She submitted
that the defendants never received any invoice regarding
display of advertisements on the said website. She submitted
that the defendants never asked the plaintiff to continue with the
digital campaign for the period from April to August, 2015.
28. The defendants examined DW-1 Nitin Kumar Gaur,
Registrar. In his affidavit Ex.DW1/1, he stated that letter dated
16.03.2015 was taken by marketing officials of the plaintiff
company from the defendants university for exploring business
prospects and the said letter was to be followed by further
business understanding between the parties. He stated that no
specific material / content was supplied to the plaintiff for
advertisement. He stated that the defendants never approved
the advertisements that were campaigned on the said website
from April to August, 2015. He stated that the plaintiff continued
with the advertisements on its own volition.

CS No. 1263/17 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. vs. Galgotias University 9 of 16

29. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that his
job profile includes matters pertaining to the students,
document verifications, legal matters related to the students
and the university, besides other miscellaneous functions. He
stated that Chancellor and CEO of the university generally
handles commercial transactions of the defendants. He stated
that he is not aware of the modes used by the university to
promote its business. He stated that all correspondence is
received by postal department and distributed to respective
branches. He stated that communication with regard to
commercial vendor or transaction issued for and on behalf of
the university is not marked to him.
30. It is, therefore, evident that DW-1 Nitin Kumar Gaur
had no role in the transaction in question. According to him,
Chancellor and CEO of the university handle commercial
transactions. Testimony of DW-1 Nitin Kumar Gaur is not
relevant to advance the case of the defendants regarding the
import of the letter dated 16.03.2015 Ex.P1.
31. DW-2 Dhruv Galgotia is CEO of the defendant No. 1.
He also deposed, in his affidavit Ex.DW2/1, on the line of the
case of the defendants. However, in his cross-examination, he
stated that commercial transactions are generally looked after
by account department so far as financial aspect is concerned
and the registrar is the signing authority. He event went to the
extent of denying the suggestion that the said letter Ex.P1 (also
exhibited as Ex.PW1/2) was issued with his consent. He could
not deny the suggestion that e-mail dated 27.10.2015 was
received in his e-mail ID ceo@galgotiauniversity.edu.in.

CS No. 1263/17 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. vs. Galgotias University 10 of 16

32. Letter dated 16.03.2015 Ex.P1 is the admitted
document. The said letter is a material document. In order to
appreciate the rival contentions, it would be apposite to
reproduce the said letter, as under:
“March 16, 2015

To

The Advertisement Manager

Jagran Prakashan Limited
Okhla

Subject: Advertisement in Digital Campaign on

jagranjosh.com

Kindly publish the advertisement in Digital

Campaign on jagranjosh.com with the following
deliverables and investment:

Result 2015
- 160 x 600 pixel banner, LHS ad spot (fixed) on all
12th board result pages.
- Duration till August 2015

Note: Result is an event and the rates are constant

irrespective of the duration.

Value Addition
- 468 x 60 banner 2nd ad spot RHS on ½ Rotation
Home Page (For 5 months)
- 300 x 250 fixed banner on pages (For 5 months)

Additional Benefits
- Article Support on jagranjosh.com

The net amount will be Rs. 25,50,000/- + S. Tax.

Payment is in 5 installments of Rs. 5.10 + Taxes
each within 5 months.

Regards
Shallu Pahuja
for
(Dhruv Galgotia)”

CS No. 1263/17 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. vs. Galgotias University 11 of 16

33. A careful reading of letter dated 16.03.2015 leaves no
manner of doubt that the defendants placed an order upon the
plaintiff for advertisement in digital campaign on
jagranjosh.com. It specified deliverables and investment. It
provided duration for advertisement as well as amount payable
alongwith service tax in 5 installments. The defendants cannot
contend to the contrary. The plaintiff accepted the said offer of
the defendants and displayed advertisement on its website. The
defendants did not withdraw the said offer. The said letter Ex.P1
does not state that the defendants were to supply the content /
material for advertisement on the website of the plaintiff. The
defendants have not stated or filed the material which was
required to be displayed on the website of the plaintiff. As
provided under Section 8 of the Contract Act, performance of
the condition of a proposal is an acceptance of the proposal. A
contract is completed when an offer made is accepted. As
provided under Section 9 of the Contract Act, acceptance of a
proposal can be made otherwise than in words. The defendants
made proposal for display of advertisements on the website of
the plaintiff vide letter Ex.P1. The plaintiff accepted the said
proposal by displaying the said advertisements in terms of the
said letter Ex.P1. Therefore, there was a concluded contract
between the plaintiff and the defendants for digital campaign on
the website of the plaintiff for the period from April to August,
2015 at the rates mentioned in the letter dated 16.03.2015
Ex.P1.
34. Accordingly, issue No. 5 is decided in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants.

CS No. 1263/17 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. vs. Galgotias University 12 of 16

ISSUE NO. 1:
35. The letter Ex.P1 is an admitted document. It provides
that the net amount will be Rs. 25,50,000/- + service tax
payable in 5 installments of Rs. 5,10,000/- + taxes within 5
months. The defendants have not disputed the display of
advertisements on the website of the plaintiff. DW-1 Nitin Kumar
Gaur stated, in his affidavit Ex.DW1/1, that the plaintiff
continued with the advertisements. DW-2 Dhruv Galgotia
stated, in his affidavit Ex.DW2/1, that the plaintiff displayed the
advertisements on its website. However, they stated that the
plaintiff displayed the said advertisements on its own. The said
aspect has already been dealt above. The plaintiff displayed the
said advertisements pursuant to the proposal vide letter dated
16.03.2015 Ex.P1. The plaintiff raised invoices Ex.PW1/3. The
plaintiff sent invoices to the defendants via e-mail Ex.PW1/4
(colly.). The defendants did not dispute the fact that the plaintiff
displayed the said advertisements on its website for a period of
5 months. DW-2 Dhruv Galgotia did not state that the plaintiff
had not raised invoices. Moreover, in his cross-examination, he
admitted that e-mail ID dhruv@galgotia.in is his e-mail ID.
However, he stated that it was closed since 3-4 years. However,
he could not state the exact date since when the said e-mail ID
is closed. His answers in respect of the said e-mail ID are
evasive. He admitted that e-mail ID of Chancellor and CEO
mentioned in e-mail dated 27.10.2015 are correct. He also
admitted that e-mail ID kiran.verma@galgotias.in belonged to
an employee Mr. Kiran Verma. He stated that he may have
received e-mail dated 27.10.2015.

CS No. 1263/17 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. vs. Galgotias University 13 of 16

36. It is, therefore, proved that the plaintiff sent invoices
via e-mail to the defendants Ex.PW1/4 (colly). The plaintiff sent
demand notice Ex.PW1/5 to the defendants. The plaintiff
proved registered AD receipt pertaining to posting of the said
notice. DW-2 Dhruv Galgotia admitted that the address
mentioned on the said notice is the correct address of the
defendants. The defendants failed to make payment of the
contractual amount despite service of demand notice. The
plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 28,65,180/- from the
defendants.
37. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 2:
38. The plaintiff is seeking pendente-lite and future
interest @ 18% per annum on the suit amount.
39. There is no agreement between the parties regarding
the rate of interest. This fact is admitted by PW-1 Durgesh
Kumar, in his cross-examination, that there was no written
agreement regarding interest on the delayed payment.
40. However, the transaction between the parties was
commercial in nature. The defendants withheld the contractual
amount without any justification. Grant of pendente-lite interest
is in the discretion of the Court. The defendants are liable to
pay reasonable interest on the suit amount. In view of interest
usually paid by Nationalized Banks, the plaintiff is awarded
interest @ 6% per annum on the suit amount.
41. Accordingly, issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants.

CS No. 1263/17 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. vs. Galgotias University 14 of 16

 RELIEF
42. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and a
decree in the sum of Rs. 28,65,180/- is passed in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants alongwith interest @ 6% per
annum from date of filing of suit till realization.
43. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
plaintiff will be entitled to costs of the suit.
44. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
45. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open Court Sh. Sanjay Sharma-II

Dated: 09th September, 2019 Additional District Judge-05 (SE)
Saket Courts, New Delhi

CS No. 1263/17 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. vs. Galgotias University 15 of 16

CS No. 1263/17
09.09.2019
Present : Mr. Jeevesh Mehta, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Advocate for the defendants.

Vide separate judgment, suit of the plaintiff is decreed

with costs. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File be
consigned to record room.

Sanjay Sharma-II
ADJ-05 (SE)/Saket Court
New Delhi/09.09.2019

CS No. 1263/17 Jagran Prakashan Ltd. vs. Galgotias University 16 of 16