Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 146
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MALASRI NANDI, J
Devendra Kumar Sethia S/o Shri Badarmal Sethia - Appellant
Versus
Interglobe Aviation Ltd. And 4 Ors - Respondent
RFA 61 / 2015
Decided On : 03-03-2025
For the Petitioner: MR.H MAURYA, MR.P DAS,MS.L SRIVASTAV
IMPORTANT POINT
The doctrine of privity of contract precludes a party from enforcing a contract unless they are a party to it, resulting in the dismissal of the appellant's claim against the airline.
Headnote:
(A) Civil Procedure Code - Sections 96, 151, Order 41 Rule 1 - Appeal against dismissal of money suit - The appellant, a businessman, claimed payment for cargo handling services from the respondent airline, which the trial court dismissed due to lack of privity of contract. (Paras 2 , 10 , 24 )
(B) Contract Law - Doctrine of Privity - The court reiterated that only parties to a contract can enforce obligations arising from it, thus dismissing the appeal as no contractual relationship existed between the appellant and the airline. (Paras 22 , 23 )
Facts of the case:
The appellant provided cargo handling services for the airline through a partnership firm, but the airline claimed no direct contractual relationship existed with the appellant. (Paras 4 , 10 )
Findings of Court:
The trial court found no privity of contract between the appellant and the airline, leading to dismissal of the suit against the airline but decreeing it against the other defendants. (Paras 10 , 24 )
Issues: The main issue was whether there was a contractual relationship between the appellant and the airline, justifying the claim for payment. (Paras 20 , 21 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant failed to establish any contractual agreement with the airline, affirming the trial court's dismissal based on the doctrine of privity of contract. (Paras 24 , 25 )
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MALASRI NANDI, J.
Heard Mr. H. Maurya, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.
2. The appellant being the plaintiff in Money Suit No. 15/2009 has preferred this appeal u/s 96 R/W Order 41 Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.03.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati whereby the suit against the defendant no.1 i.e. Interglobe Aviation Ltd. i.e. Indigo was dismissed.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the appellant is a businessman carrying on various businesses including Cargo handling at Airports in the name and style of his proprietary concern “The Door Chester”. The respondent no.1 is an Airlines Company namely Interglobe Aviation Ltd. The proforma respondent no.3 is a partnership firm namely “Star Consortium” constituted with its partners who are the proforma respondent nos.3 to 5 in this appeal.
4. The proforma respondent no.2 was allotted with a work order by the respondent no.1 for cargo handling at Guwahati and Kolkata Airports. The proforma respondent no.2 thereafter, engaged the appellant to perform the job of cargo handling at Guwahati Airport on mutual understanding vide E-mails dated 13.02.2007 and furnished the pictures, model, design etc. of the tractor, truck etc. as well as the colour and the texts/words to be used on the tractor and the truck etc. for cargo handling for the services of the respondent no.1 and thereby directed the appellant to make ready the tractor, truck (cargo van) etc. for their use for cargo handling and also asked the appellant to get ready 9 (nine) nos. of trolleys for their engagement for cargo handling and verbally prescribed the designs of the trolleys.
5. Accordingly, the appellant made the tractor, truck (cargo van) and trolleys etc. ready for their engagement for cargo handling works at Guwahati Airport. The proforma respondent no.2 through its authorized signatory, and in consultation with the appellant, applied for and obtained entry passes for 6 (six) nos. of trolleys. The rest three trolleys were placed outside Airport for carriage of goods from Airport to Godown of respondent no.1. The proforma respondent no.2, thereafter, with consultation with the appellant employed 12 persons to undertake cargo handling works at Guwahati Airport.
6. As per the mutual terms agreed upon between the appellant and proforma respondent no.2, the salaries of the persons employed for cargo handling were required to be paid by the proforma respondent no.2 but necessary costs and expenses in connection with fuel, lubricants, grease for plying the tractor, truck etc. payable to the Airport Authorities for the tractor, truck and trolleys etc. and other day to day expenses in connection with cargo handling was payable by the appellant. It was further agreed that the appellant shall be entitled to a gross remuneration of Rs.2,000/- only from the proforma respondents per day per flight per sector. Thereafter, vide letter dated 09.04.2006, the proforma respondent no.2 sent 11 drafts to the appellant for salaries of staff for March, 2007.
7. The appellant commenced cargo handling business on behalf of the proforma respondent no.2 in the service of the respondent no.1 at Guwahati Airport w.e.f. 27.02.2007 and continued up to 28.12.2007. After completion of 1 (one) month 2 (two) days of cargo handling works, the appellant submitted his two nos. of cargo handling bills dated 28.02.2007 and 31.03.2007, amounting to Rs. 1,61,507/-. The proforma respondent no.2 vide letter 16.04.2007, acknowledged the receipt of the appellant’s bills and assured to pay the same shortly. Vide the aforesaid letter, the proforma respondent no.2 also asked the appellant to submit the bills for the month of April, 2007 and onwards directly to the respondent no.1. Accordingly, the appellant continued the cargo handling services at Guwahati Airport and submitted the cargo handling bills to the respondent n
