Section 238 : Effect, on agreement of misrepresentation of fraud by agent
2023 MLD 483 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
IRFAN JAVED VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TOBA TEK SINGH
2—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 182 & 238—Contract between an advocate and his client is essentially governed by the general rules of contract as embodied under the various provisions of Contract Act, 1872—Power of attorney should be construed strictly and be interpreted to give only such authority as it confers expressly or by necessary implication.
2013 MLD 1814 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
ALLIED BANK LTD. VS SARDAR KHAN
XXXVII, Rr.1, 2 & S.34—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.238—Bank liable for fraud committed by its employees—Suit for recovery of money filed by the plaintiffs after money was fraudulently withdrawn vide forged cheques from their account by employees of the defendant-Bank—Suit was decreed for the principal amount and additionally Bank was held liable to pay compound interest to the plaintiffs—Contention of the defendant bank was, inter alia, that when the cheque was issued in the prescribed manner, the bank was not liable for loss to the account-holder and that granting a decree with compound interest was not correct—Validity—Fraud was committed by employees of the Bank, and the offence committed was within the powers delegated to the manager and cashier by the Bank for encashment and withdrawal—Defendant Bank was legal person and acted as principal while its employees were performing their duties as agents for running the business of the Bank as its agents and under S.238 of the Contract Act, 1872 Bank was liable to fraud committed by its agents—While granting relief to a successful plaintiff, it was open for the Trial Court to grant such general relief in the interest of justice as the nature of case may demand and therefore compound interest could be ordered which was in accordance with S.34, C.P.C.—No illegality existed in order of courts below—Revision was dismissed.
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 SCMR 1011 SUPREME-COURT
ALLAH BAKHSH VS BAKHSHA
—-Ss. 238, 201, 182 & 203—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 72, 117 & 120—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Cancellation of general power of attorney and sale deed—Plea of fraud and misrepresentation—Onus to prove—Concurrent fi
1997 MLD 2712 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ADAM LIMITED VS MITSUI & CO.
—-Ss.2, 73, 235, 238 & 182—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.1, Rr.6 & 9—Contract by alleged agent—Allegation of breach of contract—Suit for compensation and damages—Plaintiffs alleged that person who was agent of defendants had signed agree
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.
1971 SCMR 645 SUPREME-COURT
ABDUL HAMID KHAN VS PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN
Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 238-Principal and Agent Treasury Contractor employed on basis of a contract of guarantee Defalcation of amount by contractor’s agent and original contract of guarantee removed from record-Government, in suit for recovery of amount, producing letters of contractor spelling out terms and conditions of such contract-High Court concurring in finding of trial Court that case was established under S. 238 and decreeing suit-No scope, held, left for interference by Supreme Court.
1968 SCMR 539 SUPREME-COURT
ESHAQ & Co. VS DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD.
238-Misrepresentation or fraud by agent-Clerk in purchasing department of Mills unscrupulously purchasing goods in name of Mills despite fact that he had no authority to make such purchases-Mill cannot be held liable for fraudulent act of clerk.