Back
2005 Supreme(Kar) 284
Karnataka High Court
SKYLINES ADVERTISING (PRIVATE) LIMITED, bangalore - Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, NEW DELHI - Respondent
Decided On : 05-23-05
R.F.A. : 77 of 2005
A.S.BOPANNA, Arun Kumar, DHANYAM CHINNAPPA ANIRUDH, G.N.HEGDE, K.G.RAGHAVAN, NANDISH PATEL, R.Y.HADAGALI, RAJEEV KADAMBI
Headnote:Irrevocable licence
DRUGS AND COSMETICS RULES, 1945
Section 60 (b) - Irrevocable licence - Party pleading grant of irrevocable licence - To prove that, he should have put up a structure of permanent nature by virtue of the licence.
[Manjula Chellur, J]: Whenever a licence of irrevocable nature is pleaded, the party who pleads so, has to establish that the work of permanent nature was executed acting upon the licence granted and expenses are incurred. Whenever such fact is established or where there is solemn agreement between the parties that the licence shall be irrevocable, the grantor is Bound by such agreement and he cannot terminate the licence.
Cases Referred: AIR 1959 SC 24 ; AIR 1959 SC 31; AIR 1960 SC 953 ; AIR 1960 SC 961; AIR (2004)4 SCC 794; (2003)6 SCC 595; (2003)6 SCC 611; (1990)4 SC 320 ; (1990)4 SCC 343; AIR 1977 Patna 234; (2004)3 SCC 595; (2004)3 SC 602; AIR 1987 SC 1242; AIR 1990 Kerala 248; AIR 1990 Kerala 253 ; AIR 1987 SC 1253; 1987(2) SCC 555; AIR 1975 All 373; AIR 1969 Kerala 23; AIR 1959 Bom 533; 1967(1) Mys LJ Page 203; AIR 1981 Pun 72 Para 36 ; AIR 79 All 65 Para 36.
Irrevocable licence
BURDEN OF PROOF - Irrevocable licence -Party pleading grant of irrevocable licence -To prove that, he should have put up a structure of permanent nature by virtue of the licence.
[Manjula Chellur, J]: Whenever a licence of irrevocable nature is pleaded, the party who pleads so, has to establish that the work of permanent nature was executed acting upon the licence granted and expenses are incurred. Whenever such fact is established or where there is solemn agreement between the parties that the licence shall be irrevocable, the grantor is Bound by such agreement and he cannot terminate the licence.
Cases Referred: AIR 1959 SC 24; AIR 1959 SC 31; AIR 1960 SC 953; AIR 1960 SC 961; AIR (2004)4 SCC 794 ; (2003)6 SCC 595; (2003)6 SCC 611; (1990)4 SC 320; (1990)4 SCC 343; AIR 1977 Patna 234; (2004)3 SCC 595; (2004)3 SC 602; AIR 1987 SC 1242; AIR 1990 Kerala 248; AIR 1990 Kerala 253; AIR 1987 SC 1253; 1987(2) SCC 555; AIR 1975 All 373; AIR 1969 Kerala 23; AIR 1959 Bom 533; 1967(1) Mys LJ 203; AIR 1981 Pun 72 ; AIR 79 All 65.
Terms of contract
INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872
Section 10 -Terms of contract - Adoption of oral evidence - Permissible only when the language of the document is ambiguous.
[Manjula Chellur, J]: Whenever the language of the document is ambiguous and unclear the true intention of the parties by leading oral evidence is permissible. Whenever question arises whether the nature of the document is one or the other oral evidence to determine the nature of the contract is permissible.
Cases Referred: AIR 1959 SC 24; AIR 1959 SC 31; AIR 1960 SC 953 ; AIR 1960 SC 961; AIR (2004)4 SCC 794; (2003)6 SCC 595; (2003)6 SCC 611; (1990)4 SC 320; (1990)4 SCC 343 ; AIR 1977 Patna 234; (2004)3 SCC 595; (2004)3 SC 602; AIR 1987 SC 1242; AIR 1990 Kerala 248; AIR 1990 Kerala 253 ; AIR 1987 SC 1253; 1987(2) SCC 555; AIR 1975 All 373 ; AIR 1969 Kerala 23; AIR 1959 Bom 533; 1967(1) Mys LJ Page 203 ; AIR 1981 Pun 72 Para 36; AIR 79 All 65 Para 36.
Adoption of oral evidence
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
Section 92 - Adoption of oral evidence - Ascertainment of intention of parties -Adoption of oral evidence is permissible only when the language of the document is ambiguous.
[Manjula Chellur, J]: Whenever the language of the document is ambiguous and unclear the true intention of the parties by leading oral evidence is permissible. Whenever question arises whether the nature of the document is one or the other oral evidence to determine the nature of the contract is permissible.
Cases Referred: AIR 1959 SC 24 ; AIR 1959 SC 31; AIR 1960 SC 953 ; AIR 1960 SC 961; AIR (2004)4 SCC 794; (2003)6 SCC 595; (2003)6 SCC 611; (1990)4 SC 320; (1990)4 SCC 343 ; AIR 1977 Patna 234; (2004)3 SCC 595; (2004)3 SC 602; AIR 1987 SC 1242; AIR 1990 Kerala 248; AIR 1990 Kerala 253 ; AIR 1987 SC 1253; 1987(2) SCC 555; AIR 1975 All 373; AIR 1969 Kerala 23 ; AIR 1959 Bom 533 ; 1967(1) Mys LJ Page 203 ; AIR 1981 Pun 72 Para 36 ; AIR 79 All 65 Para 36.
Ascertainment of intention of parties
INTERPRETATION OF DEEDS
Ascertainment of intention of parties -Adoption of oral evidence - When permissible.
[Manjula Chellur, J]: Whenever the language of the document is ambiguous and unclear the true intention of the parties by leading oral evidence is permissible. Whenever question arises whether the nature of the document is one or the other oral evidence to determine the nature of the contract is permissible.
Cases Referred: AIR 1959 SC 24; AIR 1959 SC 31; AIR 1960 SC 953 ; AIR 1960 SC 961; AIR (2004)4 SCC 794; (2003)6 SCC 595; (2003)6 SCC 611; (1990)4 SC 320; (1990)4 SCC 343 ; AIR 1977 Patna 234; (2004)3 SCC 595; (2004)3 SC 602; AIR 1987 SC 1242; AIR 1990 Kerala 248; AIR 1990 Kerala 253 ; AIR 1987 SC 1253; 1987(2) SCC 555; AIR 1975 All 373; AIR 1969 Kerala 23; AIR 1959 Bom 533; 1967(1) Mys LJ Page 203; AIR 1981 Pun 72 Para 36; AIR 79 All 65 Para 36.
( 2 ) THE facts that led to the filing of the appeal in brief are as under: the second appellant is the company and the first appellant is the chairman and Managing Director of the second appellant-company. They carry on the business of out door advertising. The respondents agreed and permitted the plaintiffs to erect a permanent VIP Welcome arch made of concrete and steel at the entrance of the Bangalore aerodrome opposite to HAL Park. They were further permitted to display advertisements on the same. The agreement came into existence from 21-4-1990. Under the said agreement, the appellant/plaintiffs were given permission/licence to construct and erect a VIP Welcome Arch of permanent nature at their own cost.
( 3 ) IT was agreed between the parties a sum of Rs. 2,100/- per sq. mtr. per year would be the licence fee initially for the first three years and thereafter at an enhanced rate of 30% over and above the agreed rate for the next three years and subsequently to pay an additional increase of licence fee at the rate of 10% per annum every year permanently. Therefore, according to the plaintiffs, the above said clauses indicate or establish the nature of licence granted to them as permanent one and irrevocable.
( 4 ) AS per the terms of the contract, the appellant have spent over Rs. 4 lakhs towards the cost of permanent construction of the said structure, which is made up of concrete and steel. Ever since then, they are using the same for the purpose of display of advertisements as agreed between the parties. The monthly licence fee is regularly paid by the appellant without any default.
( 5 ) IT is further contended by the appellant/plaintiffs, having regard to the amount spent towards the construction of permanent Arch, the plaintiffs were entitled to use the said Arch for advertisement purpose permanently subject to payment of licence fee at an enhanced rate of 10% per annum every year. Because of its permanent nature only, the agreement stipulated enhancement of licence fee at different intervals as stated above.
( 6 ) THE initial period of 3 years ended by August 1993 and from august 1993 onwards, 30% increase was made in the licence fee, which is being paid accordingly. The respondents/defendants accepted the same without any demur. This further indicates that the agreement is valid and subsisting in all respects.
( 7 ) DURING February 1994 the licence fee remitted by the appellant was returned by the defendants on the ground that they intended to go in for a single agency. In other words, the respondents' intention was not to permit the appellant to display advertisements on the permanent structure put up by them. The respondents have no right whatsoever to prevent or obstruct the appellant from displaying the advertisements in view of the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 21-4-1990. Even otherwise, it is contrary to the Indian Easements Act, 1882. The appellant has a right to use the Arch for the advertisements permanently. There is implied renewal of the licence with the mere acceptance of increased licence fee.
( 8 ) THE respondents floated a tender hearing SI. No. BG. 12 and called for sealed tenders from advertisements for the display of outdoor and indoor advertisements in respect of Bangalore Airport. One of the places referred to in the said tender was the VIP Welcome Arch, which is put up by the appellant. This action on the part of the respondents definitely implies that the defendants are contemplating termination of the licence of the appellant, which is illegal. It is nothing but unilateral repudiation of the contract. As the licence given in favour of the appellant being irrevocably licence, under law, the respondents have no authority whatsoever to revoke the same. The appellant has spent huge sums for the construction of the permanent VIP Welcome Arch, which is a permanent
