Judgment : PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 72,61,780/75. The plaintiff is the publisher of the English Newspaper “The Hindu” and other sister publications. According to the plaint averments, in connection with the advertisements for the VII South Asian Federation Games, 1995, the defendant was granted advertisement rights by the Government of Tamil Nadu videLetter No. 5187-A/Advt/96-l dated 20.2.1996, Information and Tourism Department, Fort St. George,Chennai-9. Pursuant to the said appointment, the defendant had issued release orders of the plaintiff on various dates, i. e., 12.12.1995, 14.12.1995, 15.12.1995, 17.12.1995, 18.12.1995, 19.12.1995, 22.12.1995, 23.12.1995, 24.12.1995 and 26.12.1995. In accordance with the said release orders, advertisements were also published by the plaintiff as per the defendants specifications. The agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant provides for 60 days credit from the date of publication to pay the publication charges. On failure, to pay. the charges within the 60 days‘ period, interest at 24% per annum is liable to be paid. The defendant failed and neglected to pay the publication charges and an amount of Rs. 46,31,237/75 is due from the defendant towards publication charges. The plaintiff sent repeated reminders videletters dated 7.3.1996, 25.3.1996, 17.4.1996, 10.5.1996, 27.7.1996, 13.8.1996 and 17.9.1996. These reminders were acknowledged by the defendant, but the defendant failed and neglected to pay the amounts due towards the publication charges. The defendant, however, had sent letters dated 29.2.1996, 10.6.1996 and 3.10.1996 admitting and acknowledging the liability and sought time for repayment of the charges. Since the defendant failed to pay the amount, legal notice was issued by the plaintiff on 5.11.1996. The defendant acknowledged receipt of the said notice, but did not respond and therefore, the suit was filed. 2. In the written statement, the defendant raised, two objections to the maintainability of the suit : (i) the rules governing accreditation provides for resolution of disputes by arbitration and therefore, the suit is not maintainable; and (ii) the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of the State of Tamil Nadu, which is the advertiser and on whose behalf the advertisements were, issued by the defendant. Without prejudice to these two objections regarding maintainability, the defendant raised, the following defences: all the advertisements were released by the plaintiff through the defendant only for the State of Tamil Nadu; the State of Tamil Nadu for extraneous considerations had not released the money due to the defendant; in these circumstances, the plaintiff cannot institute the suit only impleading the defendant; the liability to pay the plaintiff was denied; the liability to pay the interest was also denied; the plaintiff was fully aware that the publication of the advertisements was carried on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu and the State of Tamil Nadu has not released payment to the defendant; the defendant is entitled to a 15% commission on the monies received; the actual liability to pay the amount rests with the State of Tamil Nadu and not the defendant; there is no acknowledgment of personal liability to pay the amount; all that was stated by the defendant is that the money will be paid after the money is released by the State of Tamil Nadu; the defendant moved Writ Petition No. 5251 of 1997 for a mandamusto the State of Tamil Nadu to release the payment; against that, Writ Appeal No. 669 of 1997 has been filed and it is pending on the file of this Court; therefore, the defendant has taken all possible steps to get the money from the State of Tamil Nadu, which the State has neglected to pay; the plaintiff has not followed Rule 56-A of the I.N.S. Rules; it was open to the plaintiff to stop all the advertisements of the concerned advertiser; if the plaintiff had resorted to this action, the entire money would have been paid by the Government of Tamil Nadu, but the plaintiff has not done so; therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed. 3. Onthese pleadings, the following issues were framed: “ 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claime 2. Whether the defendant has acknowledged the liability for dues payable to the plaintiffe 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim and interest as prayed in the suite 4. What relief the plaintiff is entitled in the above suite” 4. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.I, the Assistant Advertisement Accounts Manager was examined and Exhibits P.l to P.8 were marked. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim and interest as prayed in the suite 4. What relief the plaintiff is entitled in the above suite” 4. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.I, the Assistant Advertisement Accounts Manager was examined and Exhibits P.l to P.8 were marked. On the side of the defendant, the Accountant of the defendant/Company was examined as D.W.1 and Exhibits D-1 to D-10 were marked. 5. Issue No. 2: Exhibit P-1 is the authorisation letter authorising P.W.1 to depose on behalf of the plaintiff. Exhibit P-2 is the Governments letter dared 20.2.1996 by the Joint Secretary to the Government, Directorate of Information and Public Relations, addressed to the Advertisement Manager of the plaintiff and other publications to the effect that all the advertisement rights have been entrusted to the defendant and therefore, the bills relating to the advertisement of the inauguration of the Aquatic Complex Junction may be raised in favour of the defendant for settlement. Exhibit P-3 Series are the release orders in respect of the various advertisements. Exhibit P-4 Series are also release orders. Exhibit P-5 Series are various letters together with acknowledgments due, reminding the defendant of the dues that remained unsettled. Exhibit P-6 Series are letters written by the defendant in response to the demand made by the plaintiff. Exhibit P-7 is the legal notice. Exhibit P-8 is the statement of accounts. 6. All these documents were marked through P.W.1 and he has stated that for the non-payment of the settlement of dues, arbitration may not apply and that there is no privity of contract between the Government and the plaintiff regarding the said agreements. P.W.I has stated that he is not aware of any writ petition having been filed by the defendant against the Government of Tamil Nadu for recovery of money. He has also stated that there is no agreement between the parties to the effect that the defendant is liable to pay only after receiving the money from the Government of Tamil Nadu. In cross-examination, he has said that the suit advertisements have not been filed before this Court. The contents of the advertisements may not contain any particular as at whose instance they were advertised. All the advertisements contained the name of the Director, SAF Games, 1995, who is the Government Authority and who is the advertiser. In cross-examination, he has said that the suit advertisements have not been filed before this Court. The contents of the advertisements may not contain any particular as at whose instance they were advertised. All the advertisements contained the name of the Director, SAF Games, 1995, who is the Government Authority and who is the advertiser. He has admitted‘ that it is thus given in Exhibits P-3 Series. P.W.1 is unable to recollect whether someone else was the agent prior to the appointment of the defendant and he has admitted that it may be true that the defendant placed orders on the plaintiff only pursuant to the appointment by the Government and that paragraph 5 of the plaint admits this position. In Exhibit P-2, the Government directed the plaintiff to send the bills to the defendant. He has admitted that after receiving Exhibit P-2, the plaintiff did not address the Government asking them why this letter was addressed when there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the Government. The release orders which are handed over by the plaintiff to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau were signed by the accused. He admits that he did not contend before the D.V.A.C. that they cannot hand over the release orders. This witness does not know whether the reference given at the bottom of the release orders in Exhibit P-4 Series is the number given by the Government for release of the advertisements. He has admitted that if the Government publishes any advertisement, it cannot be done unless it is approved by the Government. He has denied the suggestion that Exhibit P-6 Series are not acknowledgment of the defendants liability. He does not know what action shall be taken by the Press Council if an agent does not pay the money. He has denied the suggestion that he is not fully equipped to give evidence regarding the procedures involved in the suit transaction. He has also denied the suggestion that the plaintiff has filed the present suit only because they have some disputes with the defendant. He has stated that the plaintiff has disputes with the defendant regarding nonpayment of bills and he has admitted that in Rule 40 of the I.N.S. Rules in the event of any dispute or difference between the members of the Society and the accredited advertising agency, the matter shall be referred to arbitration. He has stated that the plaintiff has disputes with the defendant regarding nonpayment of bills and he has admitted that in Rule 40 of the I.N.S. Rules in the event of any dispute or difference between the members of the Society and the accredited advertising agency, the matter shall be referred to arbitration. He has denied that the Government alone is liable to pay the amounts due to the plaintiff and he has also denied the suggestion that the plaintiff has not established its case before this Court since they have not produced the advertisement. 7. Exhibit D-1 is the letter of authority authorising D.W.1 to give evidence. Exhibit D-2 is a copy of G.O. (D) No. 177 dated 9.12.1995 where it is stated that it was felt necessary to engage a marketing agency to solicit sponsorship for the SAF Games and an effective agency should be appointed for earning substantive revenue for the Government. Tenders were called for and the proposal of the defendant was found attractive and the defendant was appointed as the marketing agent subject to certain conditions which are mentioned in Exhibit D-2. Exhibit D-3 Series are the advertisement orders issued by the Information and Tourism Department and it mentions the name of the plaintiff. Clause, 4 of the same document states that the bill of cost in triplicate along with one copy each of the papers in which the advertisement appears should be sent free of cost direct to the Director, VII SAF Games for payment within a week of publication. A copy of the bill may be sent to the said Department for information. This is addressed to the defendant. Exhibit Decided On : 4. Series are the bills raised by the defendant on the Director, VII SAF Games. Exhibit D-5 is the copy of G.O. Ms. No. 324 dated 5.6.1996. In this, there is reference to .the guarantee was addressed when there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the Government. The release orders which are handed over by the plaintiff to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau were signed by the accused. He admits that he did not contend before the D.V.A.C. that they cannot hand over the release orders. The release orders which are handed over by the plaintiff to the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau were signed by the accused. He admits that he did not contend before the D.V.A.C. that they cannot hand over the release orders. This witness does not know whether the reference given at the bottom of the release orders in Exhibit P-4 Series is the number given by the Government for release of the advertisements. He has admitted that if the Government publishes any advertisement, it cannot be done unless it is approved by the Government. He has denied the suggestion that Exhibit P-6 Series are not acknowledgment of the defendants liability. He does not know what action shall be taken by the Press Council if an agent does not pay the money. He has denied the suggestion that, he is not fully equipped to give evidence regarding the procedures involved in the suit transaction. He has also denied the suggestion that the plaintiff has filed the present suit only because they have some disputes with the defendant. He has stated that the plaintiff has disputes with the defendant regarding nonpayment of bills and he has admitted that in Rule 40 of the I.N.S. Rules in the event of any dispute or difference between the members of the Society and the accredited advertising agency, the matter shall be referred to arbitration. He has denied that .the Government alone is liable to pay the amounts due to the plaintiff and he has also denied the suggestion that the plaintiff has not established its case before this Court since they have not produced the advertisement. 8. Exhibit D-1 is the letter of authority authorising D.W.1 to give evidence. Exhibit D-2 is a copy of G.O. (D) No. 177 dated 9.12.1995 where it is stated that it was felt necessary to engage a marketing agency to solicit sponsorship for the SAF Games and an effective, agency should be appointed for earning substantive revenue for the Government. Tenders were called for and the proposal of the defendant was found attractive and the defendant was appointed as the marketing agent subject to certain conditions which are mentioned in Exhibit D-2. Exhibit D-3 Series are the advertisement orders issued by the Information and Tourism Department and it mentions the name of the plaintiff. Tenders were called for and the proposal of the defendant was found attractive and the defendant was appointed as the marketing agent subject to certain conditions which are mentioned in Exhibit D-2. Exhibit D-3 Series are the advertisement orders issued by the Information and Tourism Department and it mentions the name of the plaintiff. Clause 4 of the same document states that the bill of cost in triplicate along with one copy each of the papers in which the advertisement appears should be sent free of cost direct to the Director, VII SAF Games for payment within a week of publication. A copy of the bill may be sent to the said Department for information. This is addressed to the defendant. Exhibit D4 Series are the bills raised by the defendant on the Director, VII SAF Games. Exhibit D-5 is the copy of G.O. Ms. No. 324 dated 5.6.1996. In this, there is reference to the guarantee given by the defendant to the Government of Tamil Nadu for rupees three crores and the Government after careful examination have decided to waive out of these three crore rupees, an amount of rupees two crores subject to the defendant complying with the conditions laid down in the said G.O. Exhibit D-6 is the letter written by the Director of Information and Public Relations to the defendant stating that the bills are under process and that they will be sent to the Education Department for settlement. Exhibit D-7 is the copy of G.O. (D) No. 118 dated 25.5.1997 where it is informed that the D.V.A.C. has taken up for investigation, the question regarding waiver of rupees two crores and therefore, orders issued in. Exhibit D-5 should be kept in abeyance till the criminal case is disposed of by the competent Court. Exhibit D-8 is the order passed on 22.8.2002 in W.P. No. 17844 of 2000 where the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition for quashing the order cancelling the commercial rights granted to the defendant. The order made it clear that .the petitioner was at liberty to approach the Court, if so advised, in future in the event of it being aggrieved. Exhibit D-9 is the order passed dropping the case on the ground that the materials were found to be insufficient and the FIR was closed. The order made it clear that .the petitioner was at liberty to approach the Court, if so advised, in future in the event of it being aggrieved. Exhibit D-9 is the order passed dropping the case on the ground that the materials were found to be insufficient and the FIR was closed. The case of the plaintiff is that the release orders did not mention that the advertisements were released on behalf of the Government of Tamil Nadu or that the defendant was acting as the agent of the Government of Tamil Nadu and the contract was only between the plaintiff and the defendant. 9. These documents were marked through D.W.1. In chief-examination, D.W.1 has stated that both the plaintiff and the defendant are members of the Indian Newspaper Society and there is an arbitration clause for settlement of disputes and there is no other independent agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. At present, the defendant is not an accredited member of the I.N.S. He has stated that the defendant can pay the amount due to the plaintiff only after the Government pays the defendant. In cross-examination, he has stated that at the time when the said advertisements were published, the defendant was a member of I.N.S. and that since they were expecting payment from the Government, they did not approach the I.N.S. for appointment of arbitrator. It has been elicited in cross-examination that as of December 1995, the defendant is liable to pay only Rs. 42,00,000/- and not Rs. 72,00,000/- as claimed in the plaint. He has denied the suggestion that the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim. In re-examination, it has been elicited that the beneficiary of the advertisement is the Government. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the sixty days‘ credit was given and since no payment was made within the said period, the plaintiff had no choice but to issue the legal notice. In particular, it is pointed out that Exhibit P-2 would show that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the Government of Tamil Nadu. According to the learned counsel, Rule 40 of the I.N.S. Rules is not applicable to the present case and only Rules 28 and 30 are applicable. According to the learned counsel, Section 230 of the Contract Act is also not available to .the defendant because the. According to the learned counsel, Rule 40 of the I.N.S. Rules is not applicable to the present case and only Rules 28 and 30 are applicable. According to the learned counsel, Section 230 of the Contract Act is also not available to .the defendant because the. plaintiff was not aware of the defendant being appointed as an agent of the Government. The defendant has not produced any material either before the Court or the plaintiff that he had acted as the agent of the Government of Tamil Nadu. Only if there are communications disclosing the defendant as the agent of the Government of Tamil Nadu, they can claim immunity by virtue of Section 230 of the Contract Act. According to the learned counsel, the defendant alone is liable to pay the amount due to the plaintiff. 11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that the suit is not maintainable since the issue should be resolved by arbitration as per Rule 40 of the I.N.S. Rules and in any event, the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff, has not impleaded the State Government. It was submitted that the defendant was only the marketing agent of the Government and the liability to pay the advertisement charges was only the Governments. The learned senior counsel submitted that though the plaintiff pleaded that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the identity of the advertiser or that the defendant was only the agent of the State Government, in cross-examination, P.W.I has admitted that all the advertisements contained the name of the Director, SAF Games, 1995. The arbitration clause bars the filing of the civil suit. In any event, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, namely the Government of Tamil Nadu. It was further submitted that as per Section 230 of the Contract Act, the agent will be liable only if the principal is undisclosed, which is not the case here. The advertisement charges are only a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- and that too, it is payable only by the Government. 12. It was further submitted that as per Section 230 of the Contract Act, the agent will be liable only if the principal is undisclosed, which is not the case here. The advertisement charges are only a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- and that too, it is payable only by the Government. 12. The following decisions were cited: In Trilok Chand v. Rameshwar Lall AIR 1975 Patna 196, it was held that where the agent who signed the Hundi had not disclosed the name of the principal, he is personally liable: “It is well settled that in absence of any contract to the contrary, a contract can be personally enforced against an agent and shall be presumed to exist where the agent does not disclose the name of his principal. In this view of the matter, defendant No. l himself being the contracting party and having signed the instrument without any qualification, showing that he was signing the same as an agent of some named principal, he must be held to be personally liable, although in the body of the instrument the name of a firm was mentioned, without any indication as to who was the real owner of the same. In J. Thomas & Co. v. Bengal Jute Baling Co. AIR 1979 Calcutta 20, the Division Bench held thus: “Where the contract is between B and A as an agent for an undisclosed principal C, the question of joint liability of A and C does not arise. The liability under Section 230 is that of the agent, i. e.A only.” In Alliance Mills (Lessees) Pvt. Ltd. v. India Cements Ltd. AIR 1989 Calcutta 59, it was held as follows: “Section 230 is intended to cover cases where the agent though an agent cannot be made personally liable. The Section starts with the words ‘in the absence of a contract to that effect‘ an agent cannot personally enforce contracts etc. Therefore, if there is a contract to the effect that the agent is liable, Section 230 does not stand in the way. Under the Section, such contract shall be presumed to exist in three cases specified therein. This does not mean that those are the only three cases. There may be any number of other cases where it can be shown that the agent agreed to be personally liable. Under the Section, such contract shall be presumed to exist in three cases specified therein. This does not mean that those are the only three cases. There may be any number of other cases where it can be shown that the agent agreed to be personally liable. One of such cases is the one where the agent enters into a contract in his own name. The agent entered into a contract of purchase of goods from the plaintiff in his own name, without disclosing in the contract note that he was acting as an agent and without disclosing the name of his principal and described himself as the purchaser. The contract note itself cast all obligations on the purchaser. In such case, there is a contract to the effect that the purchaser mentioned in the contract note itself would be entitled to enforce the contract and would be bound by it. In such case in the suit by the plaintiff against the principal and the agent for damages for breach of contract, the mere pleading of the contract, the breaches thereof and damages is a sufficient cause of action against the purchaser mentioned in the contract, irrespective of the fact that he acted as agent or that the name of the principal was disclosed to the plaintiff. If it is further pleaded and proved by the plaintiff that the agent acted as agent for particular principal, then the principal would also be held liable. The agent who had entered into the contract in his own name cannot be allowed to say that he is not personally bound by the terms of the contract. Such a case is not a fit one where the Court can exercise the powers under Order 7, Rule 11 for deleting the name of the agent from the suit as defendant. (1950) 54 Ca. WN 770 (PC). AIR 1948 Mad 216, AIR 1964 Pat 275 , AIR 1951 Nag 419 and AIR 1962 Call 283 Rel on.” Chairman, L. I. C. v. Rajiv Kumar Bhasker AIR 2005 SC 3087 : (2005) 6 SCC 188 : (2005) 4 MLJ 194 deals with the question of how ‘Agency‘ can be inferred, and. the liability of ‘Principal‘ for the acts of the agent. This is not necessary on the facts of this case. 13. the liability of ‘Principal‘ for the acts of the agent. This is not necessary on the facts of this case. 13. Learned counsel for the plaintiff relies on the statement made in the evidence and the documents marked as Exhibit P-6 Series in acknowledgment of their liability. The sentence relied on by the counsel for the plaintiff is found in the cross-examination of D.W.1 where it is stated that as of December 1995, they are liable to pay only Rs. 42,00,000 and not Rs. 72,00,000 as claimed in the plaint. I do not think the defendant has acknowledged its liability. No sentence in the evidence can be torn out of context to arrive at such a finding. If the evidence is read as a whole, it will be seen that D.W.l has maintained the defendants stand that they are liable to pay only if the Government pays them. This is seen from the following sentences in the evidence of D.W.1, “We can pay the amount due to the plaintiff by us only after the Government pays us”; “Hence, we are not liable to pay the amount unless the Government pays us”; “As of December 1995, weare liable to pay only Rs. 42,00,000 and not Rs. 72,00,000 as claimed in the plaint. I deny the suggestion that we are liable to pay the suit claim.” In the documents marked as Exhibit P-6 Series, the words used by the defendant are, “We are yet to receive a sum of rupees amounting to Rs. 2.26 Crores from the SAF Games. As per the Tamil Nadu Governments statement, we are likely to get the payment during this month. We request you as a special case to bear with us till the end of this month for the settlement.” Then again, on 17.9.1996, it is stated, “We will be paying you the payment as soon as we receive it from the Government.” The tenor of the letter dated 29.2.1996 is also to the same effect. Therefore, all along, the defendant has maintained its stand that it would pay the amount to the plaintiff as and when the Government pays the amount to them. That is, their stand has been that their payment is conditional upon the payment to them by the Government. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude from the documentary and oral evidence that the defendant has admitted its liability. That is, their stand has been that their payment is conditional upon the payment to them by the Government. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude from the documentary and oral evidence that the defendant has admitted its liability. Therefore, this issue is answered against the plaintiff. 14. Issues Nos. 1 and 3: It is the plaintiffs stand that they are entitled to the suit claim and the arbitral clause found in Rule 40 of the INS Rules will not apply to the instant case. Whereas, according to the defendant, this would be crucial and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. I am afraid, the stand of the defendant with regard to the maintainability of the suit cannot be sustained either under the old Arbitration and Conciliation Act or the new Arbitration and Conciliation Act, The defendant would lose the right to raise the issue of maintainability once the written statement is filed and the defendant takes part in the proceedings before the civil Court. 15. Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 reads thus: “ 8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement. (1) A judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter, which is the subject of an arbitration agreement, shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration. (2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. (3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitration award made.” Even as per the corresponding Section of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940, viz. Section 34, the party invoking the arbitration clause had to “ at any time before filing a written statement or taking any other steps in the proceedings”, apply for stay and ask for referring the matter to arbitration. 16. In view of the above provisions, the objection of the defendant regarding maintainability of the claim cannot be sustained. Section 34, the party invoking the arbitration clause had to “ at any time before filing a written statement or taking any other steps in the proceedings”, apply for stay and ask for referring the matter to arbitration. 16. In view of the above provisions, the objection of the defendant regarding maintainability of the claim cannot be sustained. The defendant as per the new Act, had to apply to the Court that the matter may be referred to arbitration before “submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute.” Having participated in the whole trial, the defendant cannot now refer to Rule 40 of the INS Rules. So once this objection goes, we will have to see whether the plaintiff cannot proceed against the defendant and only against the Government. Though under the Government Order the Government has appointed the defendant as its agent, as far as the plaintiff is concerned, its recourse is only. To the agency which gives them the advertisements for publication. The letter, Exhibit P-2 is heavily relied on by the defendant, to show that ‘this document would itself be sufficient proof that the plaintiff can take recourse only to the principal, viz. the Government and not the agent, viz. the defendant. All that this document says is that the bills relating to the advertisements should be raised in favour of the defendant and not in the name of Rock Ads. Therefore, they were informed that the invoices should be in the name of the defendant and it is the defendant against whom the bills shall be raised. Rule 28 of the INS Rules also makes it clear that the accredited advertising agency alone is responsible for payment of bills. Therefore, Exhibit P-2 does not help the defendant nor can it be relied on to show that the plaintiff must make its claim to the Government and not the defendant. 17. Learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff cannot blow hot and cold and invoke the Rules for fixing the liability and ignore the Rules which require the plaintiff to refer the dispute to arbitration. In fact, participation of the defendant in the proceedings has resulted in the defendant being deprived of the right to invoke Rule 40 and therefore, this objection cannot be accepted. In fact, participation of the defendant in the proceedings has resulted in the defendant being deprived of the right to invoke Rule 40 and therefore, this objection cannot be accepted. A perusal of Rule 28 shows that the responsibility of paying, the bills is only the agencys. This is the trade practice prevailing in this business, i. e.the advertising agency will pay the newspaper, who will be reimbursed as regards this amount from the advertiser, who is the agencys client. Therefore, Section 230 of the Contract Act will not apply to the present case and the decisions relied on also do not really come to their aid. 18. In fact, even the decisions relied on behalf of the defendant make this position clear. For instance, as in Trilok Chand v. Rameshwar Lall ( supra), the defendant in this case is the contracting party and there is nothing in writing to say that he will not be liable for any payment, but only his advertiser, viz. the Government and therefore, the plaintiff can proceed against the defendant only. Even in Alliance Mills (Lessees) Pvt. Ltd. v. India Cements Ltd. ( supra), the Calcutta High Court has held that if there, is a contract to the effect that the agent is liable, Section 230 will not stand in the way, and as illustration, it has given the case of an agent who enters into the contract in his own name and the contract itself casts all the obligations on the purchaser, i. e.the agent, and it was further held that in such a case, irrespective of the fact that the defendant acted as agent or that the name of the principal was disclosed to the plaintiff, there is sufficient cause of action, against the agent himself; and that the agent who had entered into the contract in his own name cannot be allowed to say that he is not personally bound by the terms of the contract. In this case also, insofar as the contract to publish the advertisements in the plaintiff newspaper is concerned, their contract was only with the defendant. In fact, the bills were raised only in the name of the defendant; Exhibit P-2 also indicates this; and at no point of time had the defendant directed the plaintiff to claim the expenses from the Government. Therefore, these judgments do not really come to the help of the defendant. In fact, the bills were raised only in the name of the defendant; Exhibit P-2 also indicates this; and at no point of time had the defendant directed the plaintiff to claim the expenses from the Government. Therefore, these judgments do not really come to the help of the defendant. 19. The documents, Exhibit D-3 Series which are referred to by the defendant do not help the defendant because the copy of this is not marked to the plaintiff. It is the internal communication between the Director of Information & Public Relations and the Director of the SAF Games and it requires that a copy of the bill to be sent to the Department. This does not mean that the plaintiff should go only to the Government for its payment. As far as the plaintiff is concerned, .the contract was only with the defendant and therefore, it has made a claim against the defendant. It is also relevant to note that even in the replies to the notices issued by the plaintiff demanding payment, the defendant has not stated that the plaintiff should address its claim to the Government and not to the defendant. The tenor of Exhibit P-6 Series, as we have seen already, is to the effect that the defendant would pay the plaintiff its dues subject to its receiving the payment from the Government. Therefore, the stand that is now taken that the Government is the disclosed principal and that the plaintiff cannot make a claim against the defendant, who is only the agent of the Government, cannot be accepted. 20. In this case, there have been circumstances which have resulted in the sorry plight of the defendant. It is the case of the defendant that it was because of the change in the Government that the bills of the defendant have not been settled and that a writ petition has also been filed for the said payment and the matter now stands at the stage of a writ appeal. It was open to the defendant to implead the Government by invoking Order VIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure and that application would have been dealt with in accordance with law. It was open to the defendant to implead the Government by invoking Order VIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure and that application would have been dealt with in accordance with law. It was also open to the defendant to apply to the Court to treat the writ petition itself as a claim akin to Order VIII-A of the Code and suitable orders may have been obtained, in which case the defendant might have obtained some protection in law, but this has not been done. So, even though there may be sufficient cause for the defendant for its inability to make the payment, the defendant cannot require the plaintiff to approach the Government as its advertiser for its payment and refuse to make the payment as per the bills raised by the plaintiff. 21. The plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 24% per annum. In none of the demands which the plaintiff has sent earlier has a demand been made for payment of interest nor that the contract entered between the parties included a clause as to payment of interest. Exhibit P-5 Series merely make a demand for payment of a sum of Rs. 42,38,877/77 as of December, 1995. In the demand dated 7.3.1996, the dues as of December, 1995 are shown as Rs. 42,38,877/77. In the demand dated 25.3.1996, the plaintiff only makes a claim for Rs. 45,69,357/77. Though it is stated here that there is an insertion of the SAF Games advertisement dated 21.12.1995, which had wrongly been excluded by the plaintiff in the earlier bills, this bill is not produced and even in the evidence, it is not explained. It was open to the plaintiff to have produced the bill to prove that there was a wrong calculation. But, they have not chosen to do so. In fact, even for the sum of Rs. 42,38,877/77, the plaintiff has not produced the relevant bills and except a statement of account, which is marked as Exhibit P-8, contemporaneous bills have not been filed as documents. However, in view of the fact that D.W.1 has admitted in his evidence that what was due to be paid to the plaintiff as on December, 1995 was only a sum of Rs. 42,38,877/77, I will accept the demand made by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 42,38,877/77 in the letter dated 7.3.1996. However, in view of the fact that D.W.1 has admitted in his evidence that what was due to be paid to the plaintiff as on December, 1995 was only a sum of Rs. 42,38,877/77, I will accept the demand made by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 42,38,877/77 in the letter dated 7.3.1996. The case of wrongful insertion cannot be accepted unless it is proved. Therefore, I find that the demand of a sum of Rs. 42,38,877/77 by the plaintiff by its letter dated 7.3.1996 was the actual amount due and outstanding to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant for the advertisements for the SAF Games as of December, 1995. 22. As regards the claim for interest, the defendant has denied in his written statement that the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate, of 24% p.a. As stated earlier, in none of the demands made in Exhibit P-5 Series, which are the reminders, is there any whisper of the plaintiffs entitlement to the interest at the rate of 24% p.a. or at any rate for the amounts outstanding. Even in the chief-examination, there is nothing to show how the plaintiff is entitled to 24% interest inspite of the specific stand of the defendant in the written statement that, “This defendant specifically denies the liability to pay the plaintiff and also disputes the liability to pay any interest at 24% or any other rate.” In these circumstances, the claim for interest at 24% has not been established by the plaintiff and this issue is answered against the plaintiff. Therefore, as far as this issue is concerned, the plaintiff is only entitled” to a sum of Rs. 42,38,877/77 and is not entitled to any interest on this amount from December, 1995. 23. Issue No. 4: In the result, the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 42,38,877/77 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation. The suit is decreed with proportionate costs.