INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. Plaintiff M/s Hansa Vision Private Limited is a company duly incorporated under Indian Companies Act 1956. The suit has been filed through Subhash Gulati, Finance Manager of the plaintiff duly authorized to do so vide a Board Resolution of the company dated 18.10.2000.

2. Defendant no.1 is a limited company having its office at 3, Factory Road, Adj.Safdarjung Hospital, Ring Road, New Delhi-110029.

3. Defendant no.2 is also a private limited company having its office at the same address.

4. Defendant no.3 is a proprietorship firm having its office at 107-A, Bhandari House, 91, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

5. Plaintiff is a well established and reputed company carrying on business in the marketing of T.V. serials/advertising on the Doordarshan channel, other private channels and other allied activities.

6. Defendant no.1 appointed defendant no.2 as its agent to carry out advertisements of its company?s products such as Dabur Amla Hair Oil, Dabur Dental Care and Dabur Hajmola Candy over the Doordarshan National Network, DD Metro, DD Madras I and II, DD Hyderbad and Sun TV Channel.

7. Defendant no.2 in turn appointed defendant no.3 as its sub-agent to carry out the said advertisements of the defendant no.1 over the Doordarshan Kendras and Sun TV Channel.

8. Defendant no.3 as sub-agent of defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff to advertise the products of the defendant no.1. Vide release order dated 6.4.1995, 26.4.1995 and dated nil the details of the telecasting of the commercials were confirmed.

9. The aforestated commercials carried out by the plaintiff were for a gross amount of Rs.47,13,897/- which amount became due and payable by the defendants on the last date of the telecasting of the commercial serials. These commercials had been duly beamed by the plaintiff as per the instructions of defendant no.3; telecasting certificates have confirmed this fact.

10. The defendants have admitted and acknowledged their due liabilities towards the plaintiff for the services rendered but till date the legitimate and outstanding amount of Rs.23,39,177/- has not been paid.

11. Plaintiff approached defendant no.2 in October, 1997 demanding his balance payment. Defendant no.2 by communication dated 12.11.1997 informed the plaintiff that they have paid a sum of Rs.32,34,250/- to defendant no.3 during 1995-96 in full and final settlement of all bills and no amount is due from them.

12. Plaintiff sought for the particulars of the payment made to defendant no.3; defendant no.2 sent their ledger extract on 24.12.1998 which did not co-relate to the billed amounts raised by the plaintiff.

13. In spite of repeated reminders and thereafter legal notice dated 23.7.1999, the defendants have failed to pay the said amounts. In reply to the legal notice, defendant no.1 and 2 vide reply dated 14.8.1999 denied their relationship of principal-agency and sub-agent relationship.

14. Plaintiff in its rejoinder notice dated 11.1.2000 reiterated that the payments made by defendant no.2 to defendant no.3 clearly showed that it was the products of defendant no.1 which had been advertised through defendant no.3; defendant no.2 was an in-house agency of defendant no.1; the assignment had been performed by the plaintiff for the benefit of defendant no.1. Defendant no.2 is an advertising agency and has been classified as an accredited advertising agency and they exercise their rights and responsibilities as per the terms of the Indian Newspaper Society; its name finds mention in the list of accredited agencies of Doordarshan at Delhi. It is, thus, clear that defendant no.1 and 2 cannot have a principal to principal relationship; defendant no.1 routes all its advertisements through defendant no.2 and consequently defendant no.2 is the advertising agent of defendant no.1; defendant no.1 is the principal who is ultimately responsible for the failure of its agencies who have not paid for the actual services rendered by the plai