Section 201 : Termination of agency
2022 PLD 51 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
BAHADUR KHAN VS KARIM GUL
17—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 201—Power of attorney—Compulsory registration of—Scope—Power of attorney confers only those powers which are specified therein and in case power of attorney creates any right, title or interest in immovable property, then it should be compulsorily registered as per law.
2021 YLR 578 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
KHURSHEED BEGUM VS FATEH MUHAMMAD KHAN BAJARANI
12(2)—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 201—Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 17—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 17—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Sale agreement on behalf of attorney after death of principal—Effect—Compromise decree—Fraud and misrepresentation—Decree, setting aside of—Suit was decreed on the basis of compromise within a fortnight period from its institution—General Power of Attorney was an unregistered document in which signatures of witnesses were missing and no stamp duty was paid on the same—Sale agreement had been executed on behalf of attorney in favour of defendant after death of principal—Plaintiff entered into a sale agreement with the defendant on the basis of unregistered deed of power of attorney—Sale agreement was dubious and suit was a collusive one—General power of attorney should have been registered and no sanctity was attached to unregistered attorney deed—Document which proposed to create financial or future obligation should be witnessed by at least two male witnesses—Impugned judgment and decree had been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation and legal heirs had been deprived of their valuable rights—Application for setting aside of compromise decree was allowed, in circumstances.
2019 PLD 382 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SYSTEM COMPANY VS MTU MIDDLE EAST FZE
Ss.202 & 201—Revocation of authority—Termination of agency where agent has an interest in subject-matter—Expiry of period of agreement—Scope—Authority of an agent (partner) went away with the expiry of an Agreement—General rule was that authority of an agent may be revoked by the principal, even if it was agreed by way of their contract to be irrevocable—Such revocation was effective to terminate the agent’s authority, but the same gave rise to a claim for damages.
2017 YLR 138 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD ALI ZUBAIR VS SABIRA KHATOON
201—Agency, termination of—Scope—Sub-power of attorney stands terminated on the death of principal.
2016 MLD 1243 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS MEHMOOD HASAN
Ss.211 & 201—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.41— Power of attorney—Scope—Revocation of power of attorney—Modes—Sale of property by the attorney on behalf of principal—Termination of authority of an agent—Requirements—Power of attorney was a creation of an agency whereby the grantor would authorize the grantee to do the acts specified therein on behalf of grantor which when executed would be binding on the grantor as same had been done by him—Power of attorney could be revoked or terminated at any time—Each recital in the power of attorney would constitute a separate power—Power of attorney should be strictly construed and limited to the exact words contained therein—Attorney was inter alia authorized to sell, gift, exchange, mortgage and waqf the suit property in the present case and accept the earnest money of sale of said land—Principal had not conferred plenary powers on his attorney to deal with the suit property—No power of sale and execution of sale deed before the Sub-Registrar was given to the attorney—Agreement for sale of property and execution of conveyance after agreement of sale were different things—Attorney was required to use reasonable diligence in communicating with the principal/original owner of suit property and he should have sought his instructions about the sale—When general power of attorney had been revoked before the sale was made, the sale deed was illegal and without lawful authority—Attorney was aware that principal had cancelled his power of attorney—Power of attorney could be revoked orally—Termination of authority of an agent would be effective when same would become known to him or so far as regards third persons when same had become known to them—Revocation of authority through a registered deed was not necessary and only notice was required to be given to the agent and said notice might be oral—No evidence had been led by the plaintiff that attorney took reasonable steps in communicating with the principal and sold the suit property after getting his instructions—Plaintiff had not led any evidence that after execution of sale deed attorney colluded with the principal—Sub-Registrar with mala fide intention had registered the sale deed after registration of revocation deed—Power of attorney was of no assistance to the plaintiff in the present case—Impugned sale deed was illegal and without authority—Dismissal of earlier suit as withdrawn with permission to file fresh suit would be deemed as same was never brought—Failure to cross-examine statement of witnesses would amount to admission of facts—Plaintiff/appellant had failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence—Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2016 YLRN 175 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS MEHMOOD HASSAN
201— Attorney— Termination of authority— Procedure— Termination of authority of agent takes effect when it becomes known to him, or so far as regards third person, when it becomes known to them—No provision exists which requires revocation of authority only through registered deed.
2016 YLRN 175 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS MEHMOOD HASSAN
201—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.41—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.133—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 201—Revocation of attorney—Plea of bona fide purchaser—Failure to cross-examine—Effect—Plaintiff claimed to be bona fide owner on the basis of registered sale deed executed by cooperative society in whose favour attorney of defendant had earlier executed registered sale deed—Defendant asserted that sale deed in favour of cooperative society was executed by attorney after his power had been revoked—Both the Courts below concurrently dismissed suit and appeal filed by plaintiff—Plea raised by plaintiff was that he was bona fide purchaser for value of suit land—Validity—Plaintiff was present along with attorney of defendant at the time of registration of sale deed in favour of cooperative society, which fact was not controverted or challenged through cross examination—Failure to cross examine a fact mentioned in statement of witnesses amounted to admission of that fact—Transaction in favour of cooperative society was a sham transaction and when cooperative society did not have right, title or interest in suit land, plaintiff could not claim protection of S. 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882—High Court declined to interfere in concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below—Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2015 SCMR 615 SUPREME-COURT
Raja MUHAMMAD ARSHAD VS Raja RABNAWAZ
Ss. 201 & 208—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908). S. 12(2)—Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991), S. 13—Registered power-of-attorney, cancellation of—Scope—Cancellation neither registered nor on a stamp paper—Effect of such cancellation with regard to third parties—Pre-emptor/appellant had filed a suit for pre-emption against the vendee—Suit was dismissed by Trial Court—Pre-emptor filed an appeal before appellate court, during pendency of which agent/attorney of vendee recorded his statement in Appellate Court to the effect that both parties had entered into a compromise—Appellate court decreed the suit for pre-emption on basis of such compromise—Subsequently vendee filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. contending that the compromise was invalid because he had cancelled his attorney’s power-of-attorney before he made the compromising statement before Appellate Court—Validity—Vendee did not deny that a registered power-of-attorney was indeed executed by him in favour of his attorney/agent—Cancellation of power-of-attorney was neither registered nor was it on stamp paper, in fact such cancellation was on a plain piece of paper—Pre-emptor was a third person who had no notice of the cancellation of the power-of-attorney by the vendee—Pre-emptor could not be burdened with any notice of any cancellation of the power-of-attorney—Appeal filed by vendee was dismissed accordingly.
2014 PLD 794 SUPREME-COURT
Mst. HAJYANI BAR BIBI VS Mrs. REHANA AFZAL ALI KHAN
201—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)—Sub-power of attorney—Issued by attorney after death of principal—Effect—Claim of petitioner/purported purchaser over suit property was based on a conveyance deed executed by the sub-attorney of the respondent/purported seller—Validity—Alleged power of attorney issued by respondent in favour of attorney was terminated on the death of respondent (principal), therefore, the attorney was not authorized to execute a sub-power of attorney after death of respondent; in such circumstances the sub-power of attorney was invalid and of no legal effect and sub-attorney was not authorized to sell the property to the petitioner vide conveyance deed—Further the petitioner/purported purchaser was the real mother of sub-attorney, and at the time of alleged sale of property to her vide conveyance deed, sub-attorney made no efforts to obtain consent of attorney or principal/purported seller, who had died by that time—Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly and leave was refused.
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.
2014 CLC 167 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. FARRAH NAZ VS Rana MEHBOOB KHAN
201—Termination of agency—Agency came to an end with the death of principal.
2011 PLD 183 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Syed GHULAM HYDER SHAH alias UMAZ SHAH VS Mst. BIBI AMIRUNNISSA
201—Death of an attorney or executant of power of attorney—Effect—Power of attorney, if not for consideration, would vanish and could not be acted upon—Principles.
2009 CLD 979 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
COOPER & CO. (PVT.) LTD. through Authorized Chairman VS LAUREL NAVIGATION (MAURITIUS) LTD.
S.201—Agency, termination of—Conditions and circumstances stated.
2009 CLD 979 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
COOPER & CO. (PVT.) LTD. through Authorized Chairman VS LAUREL NAVIGATION (MAURITIUS) LTD.
Ss.42 & 54—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.201 & 202—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2—Suit for declaration and permanent injunction–Agreement for looking after business of cargo shipping of defendant by plaintiff on payment of commission over services rendered by him—Termination of agreement by defendant without issuing 90 days advance notice to plaintiff –Application for temporary injunction to restrain defendant from acting upon termination letter—Plea of plaintiff that he had interest in agency; and that he had invested huge amount on arranging containers, trailers, heavy machinery and staff to manage affairs of business, which investment would be ruined in case of refusal of injunction—Validity—Agreement executed between parties was that of principal and agent—Agreement did not speak about status of plaintiff having any interest in agency, except as a commission agent—According to agreement, such containers, trailers, machinery were assets of principal and payment of salaries to staff employed by plaintiff was to be made from income of business—Nothing on record to show that plaintiff from his own fund had arranged containers, trailers, machinery and staff to promote business of defendant—Such agreement did not provide any clause containing interest of plaint ff as agent in agency, thus, provision of S.202 of Contract Act, 1872 would not apply thereto—Nothing on record to show that there was any express or implied conduct of parties to convert agency agreement into interest in agency in favour of plaintiff—Termination of agency without issuing advance notice of 90 days could be treated as illegal, which point would require evidence, but same could not be considered as sufficient for granting injunction in favour of plaintiff—Plaintiff for termination of his agency could claim damages or compensation from defendant, which was an appropriate and efficacious remedy available to him—Plaintiff had not made out prima facie case nor balance of inconvenience lay in his favour nor he would suffer irreparable loss in case of refusal of injunction—Application for temporary injunction was dismissed in circumstances.
2009 PLD 288 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
COOPER & CO. (PVT.) LTD. Through Authorized Chairman VS LAUREL NAVIGATION (MAURITIUS) LTD.
201—Agency, termination of—Conditions and circumstances stated.
2009 PLD 288 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
COOPER & CO. (PVT.) LTD. Through Authorized Chairman VS LAUREL NAVIGATION (MAURITIUS) LTD.
Ss. 42 & 54—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.201 & 202—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2—Suit for declaration and permanent injunction—Agreement for looking after business of cargo shipping of defendant by plaintiff on payment of commission over services rendered by him—Termination of agreement by defendant without issuing 90 days advance notice to plaintiff—Application for temporary injunction to restrain defendant from acting upon termination letter—Plea of plaintiff that he had interest in agency; and that he had invested huge amount on arranging containers, trailers, heavy machinery and staff to manage affairs of business, which investment would be ruined in case of refusal of injunction—Validity—Agreement executed between parties was that of principal and agent—Agreement did not speak about status of plaintiff having any interest in agency, except as a commission agent—According to agreement, such containers, trailers, machinery were assets of principal and payment of salaries to staff employed by plaintiff was to be made from income of business—Nothing on record to show that plaintiff from his own fund had arranged containers, trailers, machinery and staff to promote business of defendant—Such agreement did not provide any clause containing interest of plaintiff as agent in agency, thus, provision of S.202 of Contract Act, 1872 would not apply thereto—Nothing on record to show that there was any express or implied conduct of parties to convert agency agreement into interest in agency in favour of plaintiff—Termination of agency without issuing advance notice of 90 days could be treated as illegal, which point would require evidence, but same could not be considered as sufficient for granting injunction in favour of plaintiff—Plaintiff for termination of his agency could claim damages or compensation from defendant, which was an appropriate and efficacious remedy available to him—Plaintiff had not made out prima facie case nor balance of inconvenience lay in his favour nor he would suffer irreparable loss in case of refusal of injunction—Application for temporary injunction was dismissed in circumstances.
2007 CLD 762 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Messrs TIME N VISIONS INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. VS DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK PAKISTAN LIMITED
—S. 20—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.201 & 202—Specific: Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.12, 42 & 55–Agency agreement—Termination of agency–Arbitration clause in agency agreement—Application to file in court agreement and for grant of injunction—
2007 YLR 590 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL HABIB RAJWANI VS Messrs BROTHERS INDUSTRIES LTD.
—Ss. 201 & 202—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2—Termination of agency—Injunction against—Agent in his application under O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C., had sought an order restraining the principals from conferring on any party, a
2007 CLC 1290 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KISHWAR IQBAL KHAN VS MUHAMMAD ALI ZAKI KHAN
—S. 54—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.201 & 215—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.17(2)(a) & 79—Sale agreement regarding property jointly owned by agent and principal being brothers inter se—Sale of property by agent after revocation of his pow
2007 CLC 483 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Syed IMTIAZ H. RIZVI VS ABDUL WAHAB
—Ss. 201 & 203—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42—Power of attorney—Revocation by principal—Scope—Suit for declaration—Plaintiff was only authorized to act as representative of defendant under power of attorney—Plaintiff, in circumstanc
2006 CLD 210 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PAK CHINA CHEMICALS through Chief Executive/Director VS DEPARTMENT OF PLANT PROTECTION
—S.20—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.201—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12—Suit for specific performance of contract of agency—Agreement between parties in Pakistan to refer dispute to arbitration outside Pakistan—Import of goods under Pakis
2006 CLD 210 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PAK CHINA CHEMICALS through Chief Executive/Director VS DEPARTMENT OF PLANT PROTECTION
—S.201—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.12 & 54—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2—Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction—Fixed term agency contract for sale of goods—Term of agency, expiry of—Agent seeki
2006 CLD 210 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PAK CHINA CHEMICALS through Chief Executive/Director VS DEPARTMENT OF PLANT PROTECTION
–S.201—Termination of agency—Appointment of sole agent for sale of principal’s goods for a fixed term—Agent’s right to claim privilege of sole agent after expiry of fixed term—Scope—Person once appointed as sole agent would have right to act in
2006 YLR 460 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ KHAN VS MUHAMMAD AZEEM
–Ss. 39 & 42—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss.122 & 126—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.201—Suit for declaration and cancellation of gift-deed and power-ofÂattorney—Termination of agency—Power Âof-attorney executed by plaintiff in favou
2005 PLD 418 SUPREME-COURT
IMAM DIN VS BASHIR AHMED
–S. 201—Termination of agency under power of attorney—Death of one of the principals—Scope—No flexible rule can be laid down as to when more than one person can jointly appoint a person as their agent–ÂDeath of one would result into. terminatio
2005 PLD 418 SUPREME-COURT
IMAM DIN VS BASHIR AHMED
–Ss. 42 & 54—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.201—Declaration of title—Authority of general power of attorney—Onus to prove–ÂTransfer through oral sale instead of registered sale-deed as authorized in the- power of attorney—Concurrent findings of
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 MLD 1677 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
ALLAH DITTA VS MEHMOOB ALAM
—-Ss.122 & 123—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.201—Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Ss.42 & 44—Allotment of land—Cancellation of allotment—Termination of agency after death of principal—Gift made by attorney of al
1994 CLC 726 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UNIVERSAL TRADING CORPN. (PVT.) LTD. VS BEECHAM GROUP PLC
OXXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 201—Termination of agency agreement—Plaintiffs we’re appointed exclusive agents of defendant (establishment) in respect of a specified product and were required to promote and increase sales of said product—Terms of agreement postulated that appointment in question, would be terminated by either party if either of them had committed any breach of the agreement—Defendant (establishment) while terminating plaintiffs’ appointment did not allege any breach of agreement—Termination of appointment was, thus, in violation of terms of agreement—If agreement in question, was treated to have been cancelled, plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss—Mere fact that plaintiffs’ suit contained alternative claim for damages would not frustrate their prayer of interim injunction—Interim injunction was granted in favour of plaintiffs restraining defendant (establishment) against termination of plaintiffs’ agency till decision of suit.
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.
1980 PLD 110 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MEHDI KHAN VS FAQIR MUHAMMAD
201-Principal and agent-Relationship of principal or principals and agent or agents–Held, contractual and comes to end with death of either side.-[Principal and 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.