Section 187 : Definitions of express and implied authority
2021 CLC 1451 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Mst. SHAH SULTAN VS Syed JAMEEL SHAH
S.187—Express and implied authority—Scope—Agency of necessity arises whenever a duty is imposed upon a person to act on behalf of another apart from contract and in circumstances of an agency in order to prevent irreparable injury to the other person’s interest to preserve property from destruction.
2021 CLC 1451 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Mst. SHAH SULTAN VS Syed JAMEEL SHAH
S.187—Express and implied authority—Scope—Implied agency arises from the conduct or situation of parties or by necessity.
2021 CLC 1451 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Mst. SHAH SULTAN VS Syed JAMEEL SHAH
S.187—Express and implied authority—Scope—Implied authority of agency does not extend to acts which are outside the ordinary course of business and which are neither necessary nor incidental to his authority.
2021 CLC 1451 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Mst. SHAH SULTAN VS Syed JAMEEL SHAH
S.187—Express and implied authority—Scope—Where an act done by a son/brother is not done in the ordinary course of business they cannot be bound by such an act.
2021 CLC 1451 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Mst. SHAH SULTAN VS Syed JAMEEL SHAH
Ss.12 & 29—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 187—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.102 & 103—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Express and implied authority—Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other disposition of property reduced to form of document—Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement—Scope—Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell stating therein that the son/brother of defendants (now deceased) sold his share in suit property as well as that of defendants while acting on their behalf—Trial Court decreed the suit to the extent of executor’s property while dismissing the claim to the extent of defendants’ property—Appellate Court allowed the appeal of plaintiff and decreed the suit—Validity—Recital of the agreement depicted that it was nowhere stated that the executor was signing the agreement on behalf of other co-owners, who happened to be his mother, sisters and brothers, and executed the agreement by putting his signature over it—Agreement was not executed on behalf of other co-owners—Contract of sale must be definite and precise and if it was uncertain it must be held to be void under S.29 of Specific Relief Act, 1877—Specific performance was an equitable relief and the contract of which specific performance was sought must appear to be correct and precise and no oral evidence was admissible to add to the terms of contents of the agreement—Son/brother had no authority by virtue of his relation alone to contract on behalf of his mother/sisters or brothers without their authority—Revision petition was allowed, judgment and decree of Appellate Court were set aside and that of Trial Court was restored.
2014 PLD 179 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SITARA VS SOHRAB
12(2)—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.14 & 17—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.201, 187 & 209—Fraudulent act—Agency—Principal and agent—Death of one of the principals—Termination of agency—Petitioners moved an application for setting aside judgment and decree whereby the arbitration award announced by the arbitrator was made rule of the court on the ground that general attorney was not given any power to appoint an arbitrator and file consenting written statement before the court—Application was dismissed concurrently on the ground that the petitioners failed to establish any fraud on the part of the respondents—Validity—Power-of-attorney should be construed according to recitals of the documents on the basis whereof he was exercising his right and any act of the attorney done beyond the power vested with him could not be let go unnoticed and principal was not bound for said act—One of the principals died but the attorney knowing said fact that after his death he was no more his attorney, proceeded to collude with the respondents and filed consenting written statement on behalf of a dead person while showing himself as his attorney which was an example of fraud not only with the parties but also with the court—Respondents being beneficiaries were to prove that arbitrator was duly appointed with the consent of parties and the said fact could only be proved by producing the said arbitrator in the witness box but the respondent did not bother to produce the arbitrator as witness which inference went against the respondents—Non-registration of the award spoke about foul played by the respondents—Prime duty of the attorney was to safeguard interest of the principal and any act done by the attorney repugnant to the rights of the principal could not be given shelter rather the same stood open to attack by the principal—On the termination of agency due to death of one of the principals, it was duty of the attorney to take all reasonable steps for the protection and preservation of interests entrusted to him by the principal on behalf of the representatives of the principal but the act of the attorney was fraudulent—Both the courts below failed to appreciate that attorney had no authority to make statement on behalf of one of the principals.
2012 SCMR 1 SUPREME-COURT
IBRAHIM KAMAL VS Mst. MALOOKA BIBI
Ss. 187 & 188—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42—Declaration of title—Attorney, appointment of—Proof—Proceedings in another case—Effect—Plaintiffs assailed transfer of suit land in favour of defendant on the plea of fraud as allegedly the attorney who made the transaction was not appointed by them—Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in favour of plaintiffs was maintained by Lower Appellate Court and High Court—Validity—Concurrent findings of facts were recorded by all three courts below to the effect that power of attorney was neither produced in original nor it had been proved in accordance with law, though the defendant was a beneficiary and he was required to do so—On account of some findings about power of attorney in another litigation, the rule of res judicata was not attracted, particularly when such judgments and decrees had not been shown to have been adduced in evidence by defendant before Trial Court—Supreme Court declined to interfere in concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the courts below—Appeal was dismissed.
2010 SCMR 1362 SUPREME-COURT
Haji LIBAS KHAN VS Mst. NASEEM AKHTAR
42—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.186 & 187—Suit for declaration—Dispute between parties over passage owned by plaintiff—Sale of (1/2) half of suit passage by husband in jirga settlement of defendant without having. written authority on behalf of wife to do so—Denial of wife, to have sold suit passage—Proof—Non-appearance of plaintiff and her husband as witness to deny on oath suit sale and rebut statements of defendant and Jirga members to the effect that sale document was executed by plaintiff’s husband after receipt of sale price with her full knowledge and concurrence—Statement of plaintiff’s special attorney that in Pathan Society, women never sit in Jirga, rather her brother/father/husband used to sit on her behalf—Validity—Plaintiff’s special attorney in cross-examination had deposed that husband bore all expenses of household; that husband and wife lived in the same house and they acted in consultation with each other in respect of their domestic issues; and that plaintiff while filing suit had good relations with her husband—Evidence on record suggested existence of an implied agency in favour of husband authorizing him to deal with defendant in respect of suit land and participate in Jirga on behalf of plaintiff—Suit was dismissed in circumstances.
2009 CLD 144 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ADAM LIMITED VS MITSUI & COMPANY
Ss.23, 73, 187 & 237—Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3—Intra-court appeal—Compensation and damages, recovery of—Transaction by agent—Indoor management, doctrine of—Plaintiff claimed compensation and damages on the ground that despite valid agreement between both the parties, defendant company failed to supply goods—Defendant company denied execution of any contract and contended that letters relied upon by plaintiff were signed by its employee not authorized to do so—Plea raised by plaintiff was that principle of indoor management was applicable—Validity—Doctrine of indoor management was not applicable to transaction entered into between a registered company and a third party in good faith on the basis of any statutory provisions in Companies Ordinance, 1984—Doctrine of indoor management was applicable to such transactions on the principle of public policy, equity and good conscience to protect innocent persons dealing in good faith with corporate entity—If agent had apparent authority to enter into a particular contract on behalf of principal, the contract was valid even though in fact he had no such authority—Written consent of principal was not essential before contract was entered into by agent on behalf of principal—No evidence was available on record to prove market rate of goods on the day of breach, therefore, no damages could be awarded to plaintiff—High Court declined to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by Single Judge—Intra-court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2009 YLR 1627 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS Mst. KOKAB BENAZIR FATIMA
Ss. 12 & S6—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.187—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11—Suit for specific performance of sale agreement, permanent injunction and damages—Suit property belonging jointly to defendants being brothers’ and sisters inter se—Plaintiff’s plea was that defendant for himself and as attorney of co-defendants agreed to sell him suit property—Rejection of plaint, application for—Plea of co-defendants was that they had not authorised to execute such agreement on their behalf in favour of plaintiff—Validity—Evidence would be required for determining question, whether co-defendants had authorized defendant to execute such agreement on their behalf—Prayers of damages and permanent injunction made in plaint would also require recording of evidence—Application for rejection of plaint was dismissed in circumstances.
2009 YLR 315 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ADAM LIMITED, KARACHI VS MITSUI & COMPANY
Ss.23, 73, 187 & 237—Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3—Intra-court appeal—Compensation and damages, recovery of—Transaction by agent—Indoor management, doctrine of—Plaintiff claimed compensation and damages on the ground that despite valid agreement between both the parties, defendant-company failed to supply goods—Defendant-company denied execution of any contract and contended that letters relied upon by plaintiff were signed by its employee not authorized to do so—Plea raised by plaintiff was that principle of indoor management was applicable—Validity—Doctrine of indoor management was not applicable to transaction entered into between a registered company and a third party in good faith on the basis of any statutory provisions in Companies Ordinance, 1984–Doctrine of indoor management was applicable to such transactions on the principle of public policy, equity and good conscience to protect’ innocent persons dealing in good faith with corporate entity–If agent had apparent authority to enter into a particular contract on behalf of principal, the contract was valid even though in fact he had no such authority—Written consent of principal was not essential before contract was entered into by agent on behalf of principal—No evidence was available on record to prove market rate of goods on the day of breach, therefore, no damages could be awarded to plaintiff—High Court declined to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by Single Judge—Intra-court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2007 YLR 2837 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZAMAN PAPER AND BOARD MILLS LIMITED VS ABDUL QADIR
Ss.186, 187, 188 & 192—Special Attorney appointed by General Attorney of principal—Special Power of Attorney authorized Special Attorney to sell principal’s land located in District “S” with additional powers to file application, affidavit or other proceedings in the offices located in District “L”-Execution of sale deed by Special Attorney and its registration in District “S”—Validity—Such Power of Attorney fully authorized Special Attorney to sell such land and present document for Registration in office of Sub-Registrar ,concerned—Such Power of Attorney was not confined only to District “L”—Special Attorney had authority to execute sale-deed and present same for registration at District “S”.
2007 YLR 2287 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SIGN SOURCE VS HUMAYUN H. BAIG MUHA MMED
Ss. 11, 107, 186 & 187—Agreement, execution of-Scope-Authority to enter into or sign agreement need not always be express, but may be implied from circumstances of a particular case—Not always necessary that agreement must be signed by all parties personally—IllustÂration.
2007 MLD 1192 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ANWAR QURESHI VS JAMILUDDIN FAROOQI
–Ss. 12 & 55—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.41—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.187 & 226-Suit for specific performance of agreement and permanent injunction—Defendant, in the present case, could be termed as ostensible owner—Plaintiff was
2004 CLD 373 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Lt.-Gen. (Retd.) SHAH RAFI ALAM VS LAHORE RACE CLUB
—-Ss.161, 6 & 31—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Chap. X [Ss.182 to 238]—Proxies, nature of—Right to vote by proxy–Scope–Proxies are agents of shareholders and are governed by law of Agency—Vote on a poll can be given either personally or by proxy-
2000 YLR 3035 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS AHMAD HASSAN
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 187—Agent, appointment of–Authority given to the agent by the principal in writing—Scope—Extent—Law of Agency contained in Chap. X of Contract Act, 1872 does not require that an agent in order to act on behalf of his principal has to be authorised in writing—Authority, under 5.187, Contract Act, 1872, may either 6e express or even implied—Authority may be given in writing or through words spoken or may even be inferred from the circumstances of the case or the ordinary course of dealings.
1997 CLC 997 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD BANARAS KHAKAN VS RUBINA CHAUDHARY
Contract Act 1872 Ss. 187 & 188—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114—Principal and agent—Implied authority of agent—Scope and extent—In order to sustain plea of estoppel, it must be shown that representee, relying on representation made by representator was misled to act to his detriment in such manner as he would not otherwise have done —Representee was also obliged to show that it was not possible for him to know true state of affairs by pursuing inquiries reasonably and with diligence—Representation could be expressed in language either written or spoken; it could be implied from acts and conduct; and same could be inferred from silence or inaction—Where any person by words and acts or by silence or, inaction (if there was duty on him to speak or act) held out any one as agent and representative and third person was induced by such representation to alter his position, first one could not subsequently dispute authority of agent or representative as against person who had acted upon that belief.
1996 SCMR 193 SUPREME-COURT
ISLAH HIGH SCHOOL, CHINIOT (REGD.) VS JAWAD HUSSAIN
Contract Act 1872 —-Ss. 187 & 188—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114—Estoppel by agency—Connotation. Agency by estoppel arises when one person puts another in such a position as to lead other persons to think that they were entitled to treat the second person as authorised to act as agent for the first person in respect of a certain class of business. First person was, thus, estopped from denying to those who had acted on behalf of the second person on whose belief he had by his conduct thus induced that second person was in fact his agent.
1990 SCMR 1038 SUPREME-COURT
MERAJ DIN VS MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN
—-Ss. 186 & 187—Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 17 & 30—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), .Art. 185(3)—Plaintiffs’predecessor-in-interest having appointed defendant as his attorney, the latter alienated property in question on basis of that agency
1990 CLC 1419 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED PAINT HOUSE VS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Contract Act 1872 S. 187—Implied authority—Presumption—Provisions of’S.187 Contract Act provide room for inferring from circumstances of a given case that an agent might have an implied authority on behalf of his principal in a contract for sale of goods—Defendant’s agent receiving goods and issuing receipts would give an impression that the goods were in perfect order and that such agent had implied authority to do so.
1986 PLD 234 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
WORLD WIDE TRADING CO. LTD. VS SANYO ELECTRIC TRADING CO. LTD.
Ss. 182 to 238-Agency-Creation of-Agency with interest -Termination of such agency how and when possible-Memorandum of agreement-Interpretation.Section 182, Contract Act, 1872 defines an agent as a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealing with third persons. Section 186 provides that the authority of an agent may be express or implied. Section 189 authorises an gent, in emergency, to do all such acts as are for the purpose of protecting his principal from loss. Sections 201 to 210 deal with revocation of authority. An agency is terminable by the principal revoking his authority, or by the agent renouncing the business of the agency, and where the agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject-matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest. Where there is an express or implied contract that the agency should be continued for any period of time; the principal must make a compe
1985 PLD 21 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MACKINNON KACKENZIE & CO VS SECRETATY TO THE GOVT. OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF LABOUR MANPOWER AND OVERSEAS PAKISTANIS
Ss. 182 to 238-Law relating to legal relationship between agent and principal discussed. Halsbury’s Law of England, 3rd Edn., para. 351, p. 146 of Vol. 1, quoted.E. A. Nomain for Appellant.
1978 PLD 45 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
COMMERCE BANK LTD KARACHI VS HABIB BAKHSH
Ss. 186 8t 187-Agent-Authority-Agent’s authority need not be express and can be implied-Plaintiffs’ agent entering into agreement with defendants on behalf of plaintiff’s-Plaintiffs never intimating to defendants, that they did not acknowledge liability created for them by their said agent due to his not being their legally constituted agent but on contrary ratifying his acts-Plaintiffs’ attitude, held, clearly showed that said agent was always considered by them as their agent and plaintiffs having impliedly ratified agent’s transaction cannot disown liability created by him.-[Agent].
1977 PLD 75 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX RAWALPINDI VS SAJJAD NABI DAR
27 read with Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 187, 195 & 201-Refund-Assessee collecting sales tax (although not payable) from his customers and paying same to exchequer-Such assessee deemed to have collected amount as an agent of Government and became functus officio as soon as he paid same to exchequer-Assessee, held, not entitled to refund of such amount under S. 27.
1966 PLD 67 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD. VS M. ABDULLAH AND OTHERS
Ss. 186, 187, 193 & 194 Principal and agent-Principal having or deemed to have knowledge of limitation of agent employed by him-Cannot complain that agent had failed to do that which he had not within his power to do.