A company can only be represented by an authorized person under Order 29, Rule 1 CPC. An affidavit seeking leave to defend filed by an unauthorized person is not valid, and the allegations in the plaint are deemed admitted.

( 1 ) BY this summary suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in Short CPC) Vipin Gupta has sought recovery of Rs. 386 10,35,000. 00 against M/s Chitra Advertising Pvt. Ltd. and Abbas Hakim. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff deals in the business of advertising and marketing of various products. He brings business to Doordarshan for which he is paid commission. Defendant No. 2 Abbas Hakim is a producer of T. V. serials. He has already produced T. V. serial such as kisse Miyan Biwi Ke . The said defendant had a concept of T. V. serials known as sunahre Warq . He had submitted the proposal of 13 episodes and pilot episoode to Doordarshan for approval. The said approval was granted on 2nd August, 1989. The serial was scheduled to be telecaste on the national network from 9th June, 1990 at 9. 00 p. m. Plaintiff procures sponsored programmes for his potential clients in the form of episode for telecasting over national network of Doordarshan. Vide agreement dated 10th February, 1990 he purchased the telecasting rights and all benefits accruing therefrom from defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 agreed that the programme entitled sunehre Warq will not be offered at any point of time to any other agencies, sponsors or parties. Plaintiff obtained the exclusive rights. As per agreement, plaintiff was required to pay Rs. 2,80,000. 00 per episode for sponsorship. In accordance with the terms and conditions he paid a sum of Rs. 12,50,000. 00 to defendant No. 2. It is further averred that for some reasons the serial could not be telecasted on the fixed date. Defendant No. 2 arbitrarily and illegally cancelled the agreement vide notice dated 21st June, 1990. After cancelling the contract he did not return the money received from the plaintiff amounting to Rs. 12,50,000. 00. Though the exclusive right on the serial was that of the plaintiff but the defendant No. 2 without returning the payment entered into another agreement with defendant No. I, thereby giving the defendant No. I telecasting right of this serial including the right to enter into an agreement with the responsors. On acquiring this knowledge, plaintiff lodged a protest. Thereafter a settlement was arrived at, pursuance to which the tripartite agreement was entered into between the plaintiff on one hand and defendants 1 and2 on the other, dated 16th May, 1991. As per that agreement, defendant No. 1. agreed to pay the amount of the plaintiff for and on behalf of defendant No. 2. The plaintiff agreed to abrogate his right in favour of the said defendant No. 1. As per terms of the agreement, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 was paid by bank draft and another sum of Rs. 2 lacs was paid by cheque to the plaintiff. It was also agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 9 lakhs would be paid by defendant No. I to plaintiff directly on behalf of defendant No. 2. The plaintiff abrogated his exclusive rights in the said serial on the assurance and undertaking of defendant No. I that the payment of the balance amount would be made, he relinquished his rights. Inspite of the said agreement dated 16th May, 1991, the defendants have not paid the balance amount of Rs. 9 lakhs to the plaintiff. Defendants instead of making the payment as per agreement filed a suit claiming damages from the plaintiff at Bombay High Court. This they did in order to avoid the payment of the balance amount. The amount claimed is based on the written agreement executed between the parties hence the suit under Order 37 CPC.

( 2 ) NOTICE under for Form-IV, Schedule-B of Order 37 was issued to the defendants. They put in appearance in time. Thereafter summons of judgment were issued. In response both the defendants filed affidavits seeking leave to defend. Defendant No. I, filed the affidavit of one Ms. Madhubala Srivastava, 387 Manager Sponsored Programme and Emerging Media. The leave to defend affidavit was filed within time, but the Counsel for the plaintiff objected to the same on the ground