Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SUBMITTED BY SUBMITTED TO
KRITICA OJHA(01) MR.SURENDRANATH
SALONI JAIN(06)
JAYABHARATHREDDY M(22)
AMITABH KUMAR(24)
AMAN GANDHI(33)
AGENCY
• The contract which creates relationship of principal and agent is
called agency. An agent is involving party to the contract of agency. He
is merely connecting link. His authority can be revoked by the principal.
AGENT
• He is a person employed to do any act for another in dealing with
third parties.
APPOINTMENT OF AGENT
• According to sec. 183
"Any person who is of the age of majority according to the law to which
is subject, and who is of sound mind, may employ an agent.
WHO MAY BE AGENT
• According to Sec. 184 Contract Act
"As between the principal and third person, any person may become an
agent, but no person who is not of the age of majority and of sound mind
can become an agent, so as to reasonable to his principal according to
provisions in that behalf herein contained
RIGHTS OF AGENT
CONCLUSION
To conclude we can say that. An agent is authorized to create a contract
between his principal and third party. An agent can be sued on his
personal liabilities and the authority of an agent can be revoked.
CASES:-
Equivalent citations: 24
Ind Cas1007
JUDGMEN
Sadasiva
Aiyar ,
1. The Subordinate Judge mistaken in saying that Exhibits V Series VI
Series, VII Series and VIII Series mention Ralli Brothers as the other
contracting party they mention Messrs. Agence Ralli Freres" winch 1 take
to mean " The Agents of Ralli Brothers."
4. The time for the submission of the finding will be one month from the
date of the receipt of the records Seven days will be allowed for filing
objections in compliance with the order contained in the above
judgment, the Suboridante Judge of Tanjore submitted the following
4. The plaintiffs Pleader here has not pointed out to mo any authority to
show that in the circumstances of the ease, 1st defendant is personally
liable for the plaint claim. He merely relies on the statement of the
plaintiff made in his deposition as his 1st witness that he looked to 1st
defendant for payment of the money due in respect of these contracts.
These contracts were entered into, not by the plaintiff personally, but by
the 2nd defendant. In the plaintiff's accounts, Exhibits A" Series, no
mention is made of 1st defendant's name in any place, but it is shown in
them, that the dealings are with Messrs. Ralli Brothers, Patukota. The
plaintiff's statement in the light of documents in the ease appears
improbable and .1 do not believe it. I hold that the contracts in question
were with the agent of Messrs. Ralli Brothers at Pondicherry and that the
1st defendant did not undertake to he personally liable to the plaintiff for
the money alleged to be due in respect of the said contracts.
5. Section 192 of the Indian Contract Act lays down that the sub-agent is
responsible for his acts to the agent but not to the principal, except in
ease of fraud or wilfulness. Section 230 does not in terms apply to
sub-agents. ]f the agent of Messrs. Ralli Brothers at Pondicherry is to be
treated as the principal and the sub-agent (1st defendant) as his agent at
Patukota, the principle of the decision reported in Tutika Basavaraju v.
Parry & Co. 27 M. 315. applies. I find the 4th point against the plaintiff and
in favour of the 1st defendant.
6. The second defendant does not put in his appearance either in person or
by a Pleader. The plaintiff's Pleader and the 1st defendant's Pleader hero
put in mamos asking me not to give any finding on the 3rd point and I,
therefore, record no finding.
5. This petition coming on for final hearing yesterday and this day after
the return by the lower Court of the findings on the issues referred by this
Court of trial, the Court delivered the following
6. When this case came on before me on the 31st October 1912, the
interested respondent (1st defendant) did not appear and I called for a
revised finding, believing in the light of the argument of the petitioner's
Vakil that a French expression used in Exhibits V Series et cetera meant
: The Agents of Ralli Brothers." The respondent's learned Vakil now tells
mo that that expression has the meaning, "The Agency business carried on
by the Firm of Ralli Brothers." I am not quite sure that a respondent, who
did not appear when an appeal or a revision petition was called on or
argued on the first day of the hearing, can afterwards appear as of right
and claim to be heard at later stages of the case without the permission of
the Court. However, I shall allow him to appear, assuming that such
permission is required.
9. The petition is dismissed with only half of the 1st defendant's costs, as
the lst defendant's failure to appear on the first occasion has unnecessarily
delayed the disposal of this case.