Section 227 : Principal how far bound when agent exceeds authority
2009 CLD 390 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Sh. MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS SAADAT ENTERPRISES
Ss. 227 & 228—Contract by agent in excess of and beyond his authority would be void.
2009 CLC 291 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Sh. MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS SAADAT ENTERPRISES
Ss. 227 & 228—Contract by agent in excess of and beyond his authority would be void.
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.
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 YLR 1676 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RUPALI POLYISTER LTD. VS ZILA COUNCIL
—-Rr.14, 15, 16, 18 & 20(2)—Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990, R.8–Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.182, 227 & 228—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Refund of export tax over-charged by lessee/Contractor, cl
2001 MLD 988 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
IRFAN HAMID VS AZIZ ALAIN
—-S. 15—Partial performance of contract—Agreement of sale executed between the parties and power of attorney executed by vendor lady in favour of his attorney showed that whole land in dispute and not a part thereof was to be sold to the venue—Sal
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 574 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ALI MOHATARAM NAQVI VS COGEFAR-ASTALDI SIDMAIL
227-Agent -Work done by agent in excess of authority Requirements -Where agent did more than be was authorized to do part whereof, being within his authority and same could be separated from that part which was beyond his authority, work done in accordance with authority, held, would be binding as between such agent and principal.
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.