Section 211 : Agent’s duty in conducting principal’s authority
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owner of suit property and he should have sought his instructions about the sale—When general power of attorney had been revoked before the sale was made, the sale deed was illegal and without lawful authority—Attorney was aware that principal had cancelled his power of attorney—Power of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.
2009 YLR 466 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS BOARD OF REVENUE, SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION SINDH, KARACHI
S.42—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.211—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11—Rejection of plaint—Cause of action, absence of—Filing of plaint–Invalid power of attorney—Effect—Plaintiff was tenant in suit property and had been evicted from the same in execution of ejectment order passed against him by Rent Controller—Plaintiff contested ejectment proceedings through attorney who was appointed through special power of attorney—Plaintiff through same attorney assailed title of defendants over suit property—Validity—Special power of attorney filed along with suit showed that power of attorney had come to an end as it was executed by plaintiff in favour of his agent for specific and limited purpose and the same had come to an end on the day when possession of the property in question was delivered to defendant through process of Court—Plaintiff did not assign any fresh power to his attorney to sign, verify and present the plaint before court on fresh cause of action and as such suit filed by attorney of plaintiff was not presented properly and was without any power to agent to file suit–Plaintiff did not even possess any legal character against defendants to maintain suit under S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, as relationship of landlord and tenant had already come to an end between the parties—After eviction of plaintiff from suit property, plaintiff did not possess any legal status in the property—Suit filed by plaintiff was neither properly presented nor maintainable under S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877—Plaint was rejected in circumstances.
2009 YLR 466 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS BOARD OF REVENUE, SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION SINDH, KARACHI
S.211—Principal and agent, relationship—Scope—Power of attorney being an instrument in writing confers certain authority or power by principal to his agent to do certain thing in a specific and limited manner and agent is, therefore, required to do certain thing in a specific and limited manner in which he has been assigned the power—Agent cannot travel beyond authorization of power of attorney conferred on him and the same must be strictly construed in letter and spirit.
2005 PTD 1607 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Messrs PAKSAUDI FERTILIZERS LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
—Ss. 50(4), 80-C, 136, 143-B & Second Sched., Part IV, Cl. (9)–ÂSales of Goods Act (III of 1930), Ss. 4(1) & 5(1)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 182, 211, 222 & 223—Agreement for distributing and marketing products of Manufacturing Company after i
2004 CLD 1530 SUPREME-COURT
BOLAN BEVERAGES (PVT.) LIMITED VS PEPSICO INC. and 4 others
—Ss. 182 & 211—“Agent” and “principal”—Agent is appointed by a principal to do any act for the principal or to represent the principal in dealings with the third person–ÂAgreement between the parties made it clear that B while dealing with third p
2004 PLD 860 SUPREME-COURT
BOLAN BEVERAGES (PVT.) LIMITED VS PEPSI CO. INC.
—-Ss. 182 & 211— “Agent” and “Principal” —Agent is appointed by a principal to do any act for the principal or to represent the principal in dealings with the third person—Agreement between the parties made it clear that B while dealing with third
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-
2003 PLD 31 SUPREME-COURT
MAQSOOD AHMAD VS SALMAN ALI
Contract Act 1872 —-Ss. 211 & 215—Power of attorney—Agent’s duty in conducting Principal’s business—Consent of Principal, when necessary—Agent, in the ;resent case, had been authorised to deal with the affairs of the property including the financial powers and if he wanted to transfer the land in respect whereof Principal had allegedly appointed him as attorney to deal with his property, it was incumbent upon him to have sought prior approval of the Principal before transferring the land in the name of his brother being the close relative of the attorney, in order to make the transaction a valid one in terms of S.211 read with S.215, Contract Act, 1872.
2003 YLR 2048 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN VS Messrs COWASJEE & SONS
—-Ss.182 & 211—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 2—Suit for recovery of amount for short delivery of goods–ÂResponsibility of agent—Short landing certificate showed that goods were short delivered and plaintiff claimed compensation fo
2002 PLD 71 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD YASIN VS DOST MUHAMMAD
Contract Act 1872 —-S. 211—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Power of attorney—Non-compliance of the conditions mentioned in the power of attorney—Attorney before transferring/alienating the property in the name of the petitioners was bound to have obtained a registered sale deed in the name of the principal from the concerned departments of the Government according to the terms of power of attorney—Where such transfer was never effected in favour of the principal, the attorney had no authority for transfer of the land in favour of the petitioners who were his sons—Plea raised by the petitioners was that the principal had consented to the transfer and non-compliance of such condition of power of attorney had no bearing on their rights—Validity—High Court had rightly declined to entertain the plea because the principal was not associated its the proceedings of transferring the property in favour of the petitioners by .the attorney—Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by High Court—Leave to appeal was refused.
2002 CLD 77 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CONCENTRATE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF IRELAND VS SEVEN-UP BOTTLING COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED
—-Ss.182, 211, 213 & 226—‘Agent’—Obligations and duties—Principal and agent, relationship of—Agent is the connecting link between the principal and third person; a sort of conduit pipe or an intermediary who has the powers to create legal relati
1992 PLD 838 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ HASHIM
S.211—Agent is bound to conduct the business of his principal according to his direction or in the absence of any such direction, according to the custom which prevails in doing business of the same kind at the place where the agent conducts such business—if the agent acts otherwise which results in loss to the principal he is obliged to make good to his principal and if any profit accrues he is liable to account for.
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.
1982 CLC 2448 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN KATHAWALA VS GHULAM ALI
Ss. 148, 211 & 213-Entrustment of money for purchase of property-Plaintiffs alleging entrustment of Rs. 2,00,000 to defendant for investment in business and for purchase of property in dispute-Plaintiffs and main defendant having business relations for long time and having running business dealings -Held, mere allegation in plaint of having deposit money in trust or mutual trust of parties does not create any trust-Party to show creation of trust must prove that one money paid in confidence on express condition for specific purpose in trust-Held further, if such payment made money vests in payee for benefit of payer.
1979 CLC 421 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB VS FALAK SHER AWAN
Ss. 5, 8 and 11-Revocation of authority of arbitrator-Contention as to S. 5 being governed by provisions of Ss. 8 and 11 and authority of arbitrator being not revocable unless case fell within purview of Ss. 8 and 11-Held: Not correct-No such limitations placed on power of Court to revoke authority of appointed arbitrator.-[Arbitrator].
1973 PLD 49 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MESSRS AMEEJEE VALEEJEE & SONS VS MESSRS AMERICAN PRESIDENTS LINES LTD
Contract Act 1872 S. 211 and Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878), Ss. 4 dl 202-Clearing and forwarding agentBound by instructions of his principal and to attend to his interest faithfully-Clearing agent does not become owner of cargo entrusted to him for clearance.
1969 PLD 269 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN VS MESSRS M. ARFAN KHAN & CO.
Contract Act 1872 S. 211-Principal and agent-. Contract-Plaintiff-company, wider agreement with Government, receiving atta, paying up its price at authorities’ bidding but informing them of its deteriorated quality-Part of atta not marketted due to its being badly damaged and eaten by worms-Civil Supplies Department treating disposal of atta as their own concern and selling it against permits-Plaintiffs vainly requesting authorities for disbursement of amount paid by them as against unsold atta and their commission, transport charges etc. and also requesting for its disposal-Atta being rendered unfit for human or cattle consumption, creating unhealthy and obnoxious atmosphere, plaintiff’s destroying it on protests of neighbours-Suit against GovernmentGovernment’s stand that since atta was purchased by plaintiffs as wholesale dealers, no restriction was placed on its disposal,
1963 PLD 105 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD. VS MUHAMMAD DIN
Mercantile usage-Standard of proof-Bank with which paper is deposited for collection-Has no authority, in absence of instruction to accept anything but money as payment-Bank to which draft is sent for collection—Becomes personally liable if it accepts as payment cheque which proves worthless-Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 211.
1959 PLD 415 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MESSRS LAKHANY BROS. VS THE NATIONAL BANK OF INDIA
-Bank acting as clearing agent to importers-Bank liable only as an agent to importers or their representative (buyer)-Bank making over delivery orders to buyer incurs no liability thereby for delay in delivery-Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 211, 212.