Section 226 : Enforcement and consequences of agent’s contract
2012 CLC 79 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SULEMAN VS RASHEEDA BIBI
Ss. 188, 215 & 226—Agent’s authority, extent of—Scope—Attorney once appointed would be as good as principal for purposes of transaction mentioned in his power of attorney, and in such case attorney would not be required to get further permission from principal—Power of attorney once proved to be executed by principal validly, then powers exercised by attorney within its ambit would be valid till its revocation—Sale transaction once completed through attorney would be deemed to be within knowledge and with permission of principal and would be legal and lawful.
2012 CLC 79 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SULEMAN VS RASHEEDA BIBI
Ss. 214, 215, 218 & 226—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.41 —Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54—Suit for declaration and permanent injunction—Contention of plaintiff was that sale mutation attested by plaintiff’s attorney in favour of defendant was without his permission; that attorney had fraudulently obtained registered power of attorney from plaintiff and sold the suit-land at a price less than its purchase price and that attorney had not paid him sale price of suit land—Defendant’s plea was that suit was not maintainable; that he was transferee of suit-land in good faith for valuable consideration and that plaintiff had purchased suit-land through pre-emption suit, wherein inflated price was given to protect sale from pre-emption—Validity—Plaintiff had cancelled power of his attorney just after six days of sanctioning of mutation and filing of present suit—Lamberdar and Naib Tehsildar had deposed that plaintiff’s attorney had received the present sale price of suit-land from defendant—According to deposition of plaintiff’s son, his father (plaintiff) was in need of money; someone in need of money would be expected to sell his assets even at lesser rates—Attorney once appointed would be as good as principal for purposes of transaction mentioned in his power of attorney—Evidence on record showed that plaintiff at the relevant time was in good health with sound eyesight—Plaintiff had filed suit himself and remained alive for one year thereafter—Plaintiff had given power of attorney to his attorney with his free consent, which was duly registered and was not result of fraud or forgery—Power of attorney once proved to have been issued validly by a principal, then powers exercised by attorney would also be valid till power of attorney remained in field—Plaintiff’s attorney was holding powers at time of suit sale, which he had validly exercised, thus, attorney was not required to get further permission from plaintiff—Sale transaction once completed would be deemed to be within knowledge and with permission of plaintiff/principal and legal and lawful—Defendant being a bona fide purchaser from attorney could not be held responsible for defect, if any, in power of attorney—Defendant had no concern with dispute regarding obtaining of permission by attorney from plaintiff before entering into suit agreement—Suit mutation had been sanctioned validly and with consent of plaintiff through his attorney—Plaintiff in such circumstances had no cause of action—Suit was dismissed for being not maintainable in circumstances.
2009 YLR 1199 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Syed IMTIAZ H. RIZVI VS ABDUL WAHAB
VII, R.2—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.188, 226 & 227—Power of Attorney Act (VII of 1892), S.2—Suit for recovery of amount—Plaintiff had failed to perform work assigned to him as mentioned in General Power of Attorney—Plaintiff’s services were acquired being the Engineer/Architect and designer of the building structure for sports complex but plaintiff had failed to produce any document, drawing, plan, design and its approval in evidence with regard to construction of said sports complex to show performance of work/function assigned in General Power of Attorney till day of revocation of said General Power of Attorney—Where plaintiff had failed to prove that suit amount was due to him from defendant, such suit would merit dismissal–Defendant in his evidence had clearly stated that the plaintiff’s claim was completely false—From the evidence on record it had been established that the plaintiff had failed to perform functions assigned to him by the defendant in General Power of Attorney—Defendant, in circumstances, revoked the same vide Revocation Deed and intimated to all concerned including the plaintiff; and also stopped payment of post-dated cheque—Suit of plaintiff was dismissed—Defendant had been established to have not issued post dated cheque to the plaintiff against any part payment of his consultancy fee and same was not encashed—Said cheque was delivered to the plaintiff by the defendant in consideration of the job, but plaintiff failed to perform his assigned work, contrary to that he misused his authority, acted against the interest of defendant—Plaintiff, in said facts and circumstances of the case was not entitled to receive disputed amount as he had not completed his assigned work—Suit was dismissed, in circumstances.
2009 YLR 1199 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Syed IMTIAZ H. RIZVI VS ABDUL WAHAB
VII, R.2—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.188, 226 & 227-Power of Attorney Act (VII of 1892), S.2—Suit for recovery of amount—Extent of agent’s authority—Exceeding the authority by agent—Plaintiff had exceeded the powers given to him under power of attorney—Where an act purporting to be done under a power of attorney was challenged as being in excess of authority conferred by the power of attorney, it was necessary to show that on a fair construction of the .whole instrument; the authority in question was to be found within the four corners of the instrument, either in express terms or by necessary implication—If a principal conferred his authority on a person as his agent, the agent could act only within the compass of the authority so conferred on him under the power of attorney—However, if such power was challenged, it would be the function of the court to see on a fair construction of the whole instrument, the authority in question, either in express words or by necessary implication—To sustain an act done by one person on behalf of others, a specific power to do such an act on his behalf had to be established—Power of attorney should confer only those powers as were specified therein so that the agent could neither go beyond the terms of power of attorney nor deviate therefrom.
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-
2004 PLD 439 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Dr. Pro. HAROON AHMED VS Messrs BRITISH AIRWAYS and 3 others
—-First Sched. Rr. 1(4) & 30—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 226 & 222—Liability of air carrier in case of international carriage by air where more than one carrier were involved in the carriage by air operation—In terms of Rr.1(4) & 30 Carriage by
2003 YLR 259 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD MANSHA VS Dr. MUNAWAR HUSSAIN
—-Ss. 8 & 42—Contract Act (IX of 1872) S.226—Suit for declaration and for possession in respect of same plot—Plaints.– claimed to be owner of plot allotted to defendant for having purchased same through his attorney—Defendant filed suit seeking
2003 CLC 846 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SIMPEX TRADING CORPORATION VS PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB
—-Ss. 182, 186 & 226—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.2—Suit for recovery of amount for short supply of goods on basis of contract—Suit was resisted by defendant contending that it was mere agent acting for and on behalf of International
2003 MLD 1993 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL ABID VS SIDDIQUE MOTI
—-O. VII, R.2—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.226—Suit for recovery of amount—Liability of the principal towards agent—Trial Court decreed the suit against two defendants jointly and severally with finding that defendant No.2 was agent of defendant
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
2001 MLD 957 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RAMZAN VS LARA
—-S. 226—Power of attorney—Lawful acts of attorney—Principal is bound by lawful acts of the attorney, so long as he remains to be so appointed.
1988 CLC 1381 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MASTERSONS VS EBRAHIM ENTERPRISES
Contract Act 1872 —S. 226–Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.116–Privity of contract-Relationship of principal and agent how to be constituted–Liability of bailee, proof of–Relationship of principal and agent need not be expressly constituted but could be brought about by implication of law on a particular situation arising or from necessity of case–Such implied authority could further be inferred from the fact where plaintiffs actually paid or agreed to pay premium towards insurance to the extent of value of their goods–If bailee was found to be agent of plaintiff when entering into contract of insurance with owner of warehouse, then such contract could be enforced by plaintiff as if contract of insurance had been entered into by plaintiff in person–Law would not contemplate that any wrong could be left without any legal remedy.
1987 PLD 392 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS BASHIR AHMAD
Ss. 226, 227 & 188–Power of Attorney Act (VII of 1892), S.2-Expression “thing so executed and done” used in S. 2, Power of Attorney Act, 1892–Significance–Agent (donee of power of attorney) is alter-ego of the principal–Primary purpose of power of attorney-Every “general” power of attorney on account of such description does not mean and include the power to alienate /dispose of property of principal–Deed of power of attorney to be strictly construed.
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.