Section 206 : Notice of revocation or renunciation
2022 MLD 688 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FAYYAZ-UL-HAQ VS GHULAM NABI (DECEASED)
Ss.202 & 206—Power of attorney, rescission/revocation of—Principles—Power of attorney could only be rescinded after serving a notice upon the attorney and any revocation of the attorneyship without notice to the attorney would be illegal.
2022 MLD 688 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FAYYAZ-UL-HAQ VS GHULAM NABI (DECEASED)
Ss.202 & 206—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 113—Power of attorney, revocation of—Suit for declaration—Petitioners/plaintiffs alleged that they executed general power of attorney in favour of their relative defendant on 09/04/1994 but revoked the same vide revocation deed on 28/09/1994—Respondent/defendant alienated suit property through oral sale mutation dated 30/10/1994 and further exchange mutations were executed qua the same property—Petitioners contended that respondent was not competent to execute sale after revocation of general power of attorney—Suit was concurrently dismissed—Validity—Admittedly, three of the petitioners had not signed the Ibtaal Nama/revocation deed, as such to their extent the said power of attorney was still intact—Power of attorney was issued against receipt of consideration amount of land from attorney and necessary dues were paid and document was got registered as per law and same was liable to be treated as sale deed—Said power of attorney could not be revoked until an adverse declaration was obtained from competent court of jurisdiction—After payment of total consideration amount, respondent became owner of suit property and attorney/respondent was competent to alienate the same, whereas petitioners were not competent to cancel power of attorney after receiving total consideration—Agreement mentioned that the agreement/power of attorney had been executed in favour of respondent, as such the same was admitted, which could not be revoked without issuance of notice/observing procedure of revocation of sale deed—Facts admitted need not be proved—Petitioner’s counsel produced documentary evidence which was not a valid tender of documents in evidence—Such documents could not be relied upon as valid piece of evidence and such documents were liable to be excluded from taking into consideration—Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.
2015 PLD 212 SUPREME-COURT
Dr. MUHAMMAD JAVAID SHAFI VS Syed RASHID ARSHAD
Art. 114—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 203, 206 & 207—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 39 — Suit for cancellation of general power of attorney, and consequential sale agreement and sale deed—Estoppel—Scope—Silence and inaction on part of plaintiff in safeguarding his right—Effect—Waiver of right to object—Suit plot was exempted in favour of plaintiff/respondent by the Development Authority as compensation for acquired land—Plaintiff purportedly executed and got registered an irrevocable general power of attorney in favour of the defendant/attorney—Defendant pursued the exemption of the suit plot with the Development Authority on behalf of the plaintiff—Subsequently defendant on basis of the power of attorney sold out the suit plot to a third person, who in turn sold it to the appellant—About 16 years after the date of execution/registration of the general power of attorney in favour of defendant, plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of documents and possession of suit land alleging that the power of attorney, sale agreements and sale deeds were the result of fraud, forgery, misrepresentation and manipulation—Validity—Plaintiff admittedly came to know about the general power of attorney in favour of defendant in the year 1971, but did not take recourse to the proper legal action—Plaintiff according to his own statement was aware of the sale having been made in favour of third party in 1974, but no action was taken for assailing the same in time and he remained silent—General power of attorney which was the basis of alleged fraud was undisputedly in the knowledge of the plaintiff since 1971, but he slept over the matter, and allowed the said power of attorney to be utilized against his interest, which culminated into the sale firstly in favour of third party and thereafter in favour of the appellant—Defendant in fact virtually procured the exemption of the suit plot on the basis of the said power of attorney, and thereafter entered into an agreement with the Development Authority—Plaintiff having come to know of the power of attorney neither sought revocation of the same as per S.203 of the Contract Act, 1872, nor issued a notice for its revocation or renunciation according to Ss.206 & 207 of the Contract Act, 1872 or a public notice to renounce the same—Plaintiff since the year 1971 never even bothered to visit the suit land to see its physical condition, whether it was vacant or had been constructed upon—All such facts put together led to the conclusion that the rule of estoppel squarely operated against the plaintiff, within the purview of Art.114 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—Plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the case was estopped by his own conduct from filing the suit— Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
2013 MLD 1392 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD HASSAN VS SHAMSUDDIN
Ss. 202 & 206—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 56—-Suit for declaration seeking declaration to the effect that the instrument of revocation of power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff be declared ineffective and invalid—-Maintainability—-Agency—-Principal and agent—Revocation of power of attorney—Contention of the plaintiff was that Power of Attorney in his favour was against consideration therefore it could not have been revoked—-Validity—-Admitted position was that no consideration whatsoever against execution of power of attorney was passed and even if the case of the plaintiff was admitted, even then he only acted as an agent—-No doubt that in cases where the agent had an interest in the property, which was the subject matter of the agency, then such agency could not be revoked to the detriment of the agent’s interest unless it was provided in the contract itself, however that was not in the present case as the plaintiff had no interest in the subject matter of the agency—Plaintiff as an agent had no interest whatsoever in the subject matter of agency, and therefore, no cause of action in the present suit—Power-of-attorney without consideration could be revoked any time but such revocation would not be valid for transactions already entered into by the agent prior to such revocation, and the cause of action to get such transaction specifically enforced would only be available to the third party in whose favour such power was exercised or interest was conferred—Plaintiff had no cause of action and therefore, plaint was rejected, in circumstances.
2006 MLD 367 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs AL-MUMTAZ AGENCIES through Proprietor VS MILLAT TRACTORS LIMITED through Managing Director
—Ss.205 & 206—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.56(f)—Agency, contract of—Premature, improper or unlawful termination of such contract—Remedy of agent—Agent for such breach could claim only damages—Principles.
2005 SCMR 1315 SUPREME-COURT
RAZA MUNIR VS Mst. SARDAR BIBI
—-Ss. 203, 206, 207 & 208—Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.18—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Registered power of attorney, cancellation of—Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider question, whether authority of attorney co
2005 SCMR 1315 SUPREME-COURT
RAZA MUNIR VS Mst. SARDAR BIBI
—Ss. 186, 203, 206, 207 & 208—Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.18—Cancellation of registered power of attorney by principal not by a registered deed, but by issuing notice to attorney and proclamation in newspaper—Sale of principal’s property by
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-
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.
1985 CLC 1522 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HUMA ENTERPRISES VS PIR ALI SHAH
Ss. 205 & 206–Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.56–Agency contract–Termination of agency–Suit for declaration and perpetual injunction–Three months’ notice required under agreement allegedly not given–Held, even if such notice was not given and even if there was unlawful termination of dealership agreement, plaintiff could only ask for damages and not for declaration and permanent injunction-Such agreement could not be specifically- enforced–Suit, held, was neither maintainable under Ss. 205 & 206 of Contract Act, 1872 nor under any other rule of law.
1980 CLC 2199 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD AREF EFFENDI VS EGYPT AIR
—-.Ss. 205 & 206-Reasonable notice–Court of law may attach an implied term of a reasonable notice even in a case in which under agreement a summary termination of agency agreement contemplated.
1973 SCMR 555 SUPREME-COURT
WEST PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS AZIZ QURESHI
Ss. 203, 205 & 206-Principal and agent-Revocation of agency-Principal without sufficient cause revoking agency before expiration of period mentioned in contract Must pay compensation-Loss of reputation by agent-Could be sufficient reason for putting agency to an end.
1973 PLD 222 SUPREME-COURT
WPIGC, KARACHI VS AZIZ QURESBI
Ss. 203, 205, 206 & 73 -Principal and agent-Damages-Contract of agency -Termination of agency before expiry of agreed term Damages could be recovered only where such termination without “sufficient reason”-Loss of his reputation by agent-Could be considered “sufficient reason” for putting end to agency on part of principal- Whither there way “sufficient cause”-To be determined by circumstances of each case-Loss of reputation not mentioned in letter of revocation by principal as reason for termination of agency although there had been in fact some loss of reputation of agent on account of police action against him-Loss of reputation, in circumstance, although -may not be relied upon as furnishing “sufficient cause” for withdrawal of agency it nevertheless could be taken into consideration In assessing measure of damages-Breach of contract -Principles guiding Court in determination of measure of damages Compensation is payable for actual loss or damage caused