Section 72: Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract. 

 

2021  PTD  2078   INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN

COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-II, RTO, HYDERABAD       VS       SHAHEEN ENTERPRISES

Sections 182, 186 & 188—Sales of Goods Act (III of 1930), Sections 2 (9) & 4—Agent and his authority—Scope— Agent has an authority to act on behalf of his principal and has an authority to create contractual relationships between principal and third parties— Agent generally receives commission on the basis of the work done by him and is not subject to direct control and supervision of principal and can often act on his discretion but is bound to follow lawful instructions of the principal—“Mercantile agent” is the agent who has authority to sell goods or to raise security of goods on behalf of his principal—“Commission agent” is a mercantile agent who buys or sells goods on behalf of his principal and receives commission for the purpose— Duties of agent include duty to follow instructions of principal, duty to carry out work with skill and care and duty to render accounts to principal.

 

2017  CLC  1773   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

KHIZAR YASEEN       VS       Mst. KHADIJA BIBI

Sections  188 & 215—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984). Arts.117 & 120—Principal and attorney—Relationship—Transaction by attorney in favor of his legal heir—Onus to prove—Plaintiffs in suit for declaration and permanent injunction, assailed General Power of Attorney executed in favour of defendant and transfer of property in favour of his son and brothers—Suit and appeal were concurrently decided in favour of plaintiffs by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively—Validity—Once there was transaction of sale, defendants were bound to establish as burden was on attorney to prove that such sale was genuine—No such evidence was produced by defendants who were beneficiaries and were burdened with to prove the fact—Specific allegation was that General Power of Attorney was prepared by committing fraud and on the basis of the same, subsequent mutations of exchange and sale were entered and attested—Findings of two courts below were according to law and evidence produced by parties— Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

 

2017  CLCN  44   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD JAVED       VS       AREZ SHER

SECTION 188—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), section12—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Power of attorney—Scope—Executant of agreement to sell was lawful attorney on the day when the same was executed—Principals appointed their father as their attorney to manage, sale, mortgage, gift and alienate their property—Attorney before the execution of sale deed entered into an agreement to sell suit property with the plaintiff and received part consideration and agreed to transfer the same subject to payment of balance amount—Defendant was legally appointed attorney and deed of appointment as attorney was valid and was not revoked—Power of attorney was revoked after the institution of suit—Attorney was entitled to do the lawful things incidental for completion or performance of the act permitted under the deed—Attorney had power to sell the property in the name of principals and agreement to sell was an incidental act for completion of sale—If power to sell or alienate was available to the attorney, there was no need for getting fresh permission for sale of property of principals—If attorney had not paid any sale consideration to the principals, it was matter between the principals and agent—Purchaser had nothing to do with the said act of attorney—If attorney had not paid the amount of part consideration to the principals, the principals had every right to recover the same from the attorney according to law—Transaction of sale was entered into between the plaintiff and attorney—Plaintiff had paid part consideration but major amount remained with him while suit property remained in possession of defendant who continued to reap its benefits—Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were set aside and suit was decreed—Plaintiff would pay 8% markup per annum simple on the balance amount till the execution of sale deed—Appeal was accepted, in circumstances.

2016  CLCN  62   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ        VS       MUHAMMAD KHAN

SECTION 188—Death of principal—Effect—General power of attorney stands automatically terminated with the death of principal.

2012  SCMR  1   SUPREME-COURT

IBRAHIM KAMAL       VS       Mst. MALOOKA BIBI

Sections  187 & 188—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), section11—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42—Declaration of title—Attorney, appointment of—Proof—Proceedings in another case—Effect—Plaintiffs assailed transfer of suit land in favour of defendant on the plea of fraud as allegedly the attorney who made the transaction was not appointed by them—Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in favour of plaintiffs was maintained by Lower Appellate Court and High Court—Validity—Concurrent findings of facts were recorded by all three courts below to the effect that power of attorney was neither produced in original nor it had been proved in accordance with law, though the defendant was a beneficiary and he was required to do so—On account of some findings about power of attorney in another litigation, the rule of res judicata was not attracted, particularly when such judgments and decrees had not been shown to have been adduced in evidence by defendant before Trial Court—Supreme Court declined to interfere in concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the courts below—Appeal was dismissed.

2012  YLR  600   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

HAYAT AHMAD KHAN        VS       Mr section SAMINA MOAZZAM

SECTION 188—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Sections 12 & 54—Agreement to sell property—Suit for specific performance, injunction and damages—Principal and agent—Principal was responsible to the acts which were done by the attorney during the currency of agreement of agency—In the present case, agency agreement between principal and agent was intact when the agreement to sell property was executed—Plea of undue influence could not be accepted on mere allegation specifically when claimant failed to prove that the respondent was in dominating position in the case rather the respondent was in compromising position as they had paid the amount but the possession remained with the appellants and as such the plea of undue influence was just a plea and had not been proved—Appellants’ case was that there was an oral agreement, as such, in the circumstances of the case, it was the duty of the appellants to prove the existence of any oral agreement—Respondents had claimed that agreement was written but it was not signed by the appellants while the respondents had successfully proved the agreement of sale between the parties and payment of amount, as such the judgment of trial Court decreeing the suit did not warrant any interference—Appeal against order of the trial Court was dismissed, in circumstances.

2012  CLC  79   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD SULEMAN       VS       RASHEEDA BIBI

Sections  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  1532   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MASTER ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD.       VS       ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARACHI SOUTH

SECTION 15—Contract Act (IX of 1872) S.188—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199— Constitutional petition— Agent’s authority— Scope—Contention of the tenant (petitioner) was that the ejectment petition was filed by an unauthorized person—Validity—Section 188 of the Contract Act, 1872 stipulated that the agent had the authority to do every lawful thing which was necessary in order to do such act, and the person through whom the case had been filed, was authorized to do so and pursue the case—Ejectment case was filed with the authorization of the principal—No objection had been raised by the principal/landlord company; which showed that they had ratified the act of filing the ejectment case—While the leading of evidence and cross-examination tenant had not raised any point with regard to the authority of the said person—Constitutional petition was dismissed.

2011  PLD  284   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Mst. AMEER BEGUM       VS       ABID HUSSAIN (MINOR)

Sections  128, 131, 182 & 188—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.III, R.1—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42—Principal and agent—Liability of agent—Scope—Trial Court decreed the suit—Appellate Court accepted the appeal filed by defendant—Plaintiffs contended that the surety having died during the pendency of the suit, his legal heirs were not bound to honour his surety—Validity—`Agent’ was the person employed to do any work for another or represent another in dealing with a third party—No particular formality was required to constitute the agreement of agency—Principal’s authority to agent to represent or act for him or to act in bringing him into contractual relationship with the third party, constituted essence of agency—Such’ authority or agency was not required to be necessarily in writing but the same could be inferred from circumstances—Principal was responsible for the acts done by the agent within the agency arrangement—Agent of defendant sold the property to plaintiffs while undertaking to make good for any loss incurred by plaintiffs due to any defect in the title of the property by transferring his own property in favour of plaintiffs—Attorney, while acting on behalf of his principal undertook to compensate the plaintiff personally and as such he became the guarantor or surety of his principal—Under S.128 of the Contract Act, 1892, liability of the surety was co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless otherwise provided by the contract—Attorney could not escape liability, as S.131 of the Contract Act, 1872 applied only to future transactions—Both seller/principal and his attorney were jointly and severally liable to transfer their other land in favour of the plaintiffs in case of defective title of the seller/defendant—Order III, R.1, C.P.C. was not mandatory but the same was directory in nature—Object of O.III, R.1, C.P.C. was to ensure that the facts stated in the pleadings were duly owned by the parties presenting the same—Non-signing of the plaint by the principal was not fatal and the defect could be rectified at any stage of proceedings—After removal of defect, or rectification, the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted on the day of presentation of the plaint and its registration in the office—Legal heirs of deceased attorney/agent would inherit his estate subject to the first charge of plaintiff as the deceased attorney stood/surety/guarantor of the seller regarding the suit land—Legal heirs of deceased surety could not be absolved from the liability of their deceased father—Impugned judgment was set aside and the judgment of the Trial Court was restored.

2011  YLR  2099   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ALLAH YAR       VS       Mst. ZAHOOR ELAHI

S.19—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Sections 188 & 114— Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42—Suit for declaration—Principal and agent—Trial Court dismissed the suit—Appellate Court accepted the appeal—Validity—Deceased predecessor-in-interest of the parties which were siblings inter se had Dakheel Kari rights in the land and was required to obtain permission from the Provincial Government for alienating the disputed property—Attorney of the said deceased predecessor-in-interest obtained permission from the Collector for pronouncement of gift of occupancy rights in favour of the defendant who was real son of the deceased predecessor-in-interest—Land in question was property of the Provincial Government and the deceased predecessor-in-interest was holding only the Dakheel Kari rights in the property transferred by his attorney—Sale-deeds were subsequent to the issuance of permission under S.19 of the Colonization of the Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912—Son of the deceased predecessor-in-interest was already a donee of the disputed property which was transferred by the attorney through sale-deeds in order to exclude other legal heirs of the  deceased/ principal—Attorney was bound to take special permission from the deceased/ principal before transferring the property in his own name or in the name of close fiduciary relations—Attorney was bound to satisfy the court qua absence of his principal at the time of transaction of sale as such transaction would not hold good unless knowledge and consent of the principal had been established—Attorney of the deceased and the defendant colluded to transfer the disputed property through gift transaction followed by sale-deeds in order to exclude other legal heirs of the deceased who was an ailing old man—Sale-deeds executed by the attorney were hit by Sections 188 and 214 of the Contract Act, 1872—Permission given by the Collector to the attorney pertained to gift transaction and not the sale—Suit was not time-barred as limitation was not applicable to inheritance—Earlier suit filed by the deceased predecessor was no bar to subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff to seek her share in the deceased’s/father’s property—Sale in question having been proved fraudulent, was not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs—Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2010  SCMR  1108   SUPREME-COURT

GULZAR AHMED       VS       YAQOOB KHAN

SECTION 9—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.188—Suit for possession—Plaintiff’s plea that he as tenant was doing business in suit shop through attorney/agent, who in order to satisfy his debt handed over its possession to defendant without plaintiff’s consent—Validity—If attorney/agent had no authority to hand over possession of suit shop, then plaintiff had remedy against attorney/agent and not by filing such suit against defendant—Unauthorized act of an agent in excess of his authority in all cases would not be binding upon his principal—Nothing on record to show that attorney was in possession of shop by fraud, misrepresentation or against freewill of plaintiff or that defendant had been informed that attorney/agent had no authority to surrender possession of shop—Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

2010  SCMR  1108   SUPREME-COURT

GULZAR AHMED       VS       YAQOOB KHAN

Sections  188 & 196—Unauthorized act of an agent in excess of his authority in all cases would not be binding upon his principal.

2009  PLD  13   SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

MAQSOOD AHMED       VS       MUHAMMAD RAZZAQUE

Sections 188 & 214—Alienation of property of principal by attorney—Attorney before transferring the land to his own kith and kin had to obtain permission from the principal.

2009  CLC  870   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ALLAH DITTA       VS       NASREEN AKHTAR

Sections  42 & 54—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Sections 188, 214 & 215—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115—Gift-deed—Proof—Principal and attorney, relationship—Misreading and non-reading of evidence—Transfer of property in the name of near relative by the attorney—Plaintiff appointed general attorney who transferred suit property in the name of his near relative—Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff but Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit—Validity—Trial Court while decreeing the suit rightly observed that defendants could not substantiate their stance by adducing any oral or documentary evidence but Lower Appellate Court had travelled beyond jurisdiction conferred upon it under law and rendered a conclusion which was not only against facts of the case but was also against consistent view of superior courts—Plaintiff succeeded to prove that before making gift by attorney in favour of his relative, no consultation or prior admission was obtained by him—Plaintiff had not given any authority to attorney while executing power of attorney to alienate suit property in any manner whatsoever—Judgment of Lower Appellate Court was contrary to facts and violative of law and therefore, was not sustained—Revision was allowed in circumstances.

2009  YLR  1199   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Syed IMTIAZ H. RIZVI       VS       ABDUL WAHAB

1. VII, R.2—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Sections 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

1. VII, R.2—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Sections 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.

2009  YLR  1024   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MEHRAN DISTRIBUTORS through Proprietor       VS       UNITED BANK LTD. Through Engineering Division, Karachi

S.188—Power of attorney would be construed in terms of section188 of Contract Act, 1872—Person authorized would carry out function in manner authorized by power of attorney, otherwise same would be nullity in eye of law.

2008  PLD  389   SUPREME-COURT

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF       VS       MUHAMMAD MALIK

Sections  188, 214 & 215—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42—Suit for declaration of ownership of property—Sale of land by attorney to his relative without consulting the principal—Effect—If an attorney intends to exercise right of sale/gift in his favour or in favour of next of his kin, he/she had to consult the principal before exercising that right—When an attorney on the basis of power of attorney even if “general”, purchases the property for himself or for his own benefit, he should first obtain the consent and approval of principal after acquainting him with all material circumstances.

2008  YLR  2841   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PHULMAJEERAN BEGUM alias PHULLAN BEGUM       VS       ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MAILSI

S.188—Power of attorney—Execution of power of attorney—Preconditions—Existence of executor and subject-matter land in the name of executor are essential for validity of power of attorney—If any one of the essentials is missing, the validity of power of attorney is ousted and such document ceases to have effect.

2008  PLD  196   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ       VS       MUSHTAQ ALI

Sections  8, 39 & 42—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.188—Suit for declaration, cancellation of power of attorney and possession—Plaintiff had prayed for declaration to the effect that registered irrevocable power of attorney executed by him in favour of his son was not liable to be exercised during the lifetime, as there was difference between power of attorney and will—Validity—Section 188 of Contract Act, 1872 described the extent of agents authority; Agent having an authority to do an act had authority to do every lawful act and thing for the execution of the same—Power of attorney was an instrument by which authority was conferred on an agent—Such an instrument was construed strictly and conferred only such authority as was given expressly or by necessary implication—Irrevocable general power of attorney in the suit indicated that same was to be operated during lifetime of the plaintiff and after his death same would operate as will—Alleged cancellation of said registered general power of attorney did not bear the signature of attorney nor it was registered—Attorney was son and attorney of the plaintiff having power to do so sold the property, in question—Appellate Court below had not considered all said facts and passed impugned order hastily—Impugned judgment and decree, were set aside and resultantly the possession of the property in question was restored to the buyer of the property.

2007  CLC  500   PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

FIRDOS SHAH       VS       Mst. MEMOONA BIBI

—-Sections  188, 214 & 215—Power of attorney—Scope—Execution of power-of-attorney, neither would amount to be divesting the principal of the authority over the subject-matter nor would it amount to absolute right of the attorney over the property as its

2007  YLR  2837   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ZAMAN PAPER AND BOARD MILLS LIMITED       VS       ABDUL QADIR

Sections 186, 187, 188 & 192—Special Attorney appointed by General Attorney of principal—Special Power of Attorney authorized Special Attorney to sell principal’s land located in District “S” with additional powers to file application, affidavit or other proceedings in the offices located in District “L”-Execution of sale deed by Special Attorney and its registration in District “S”—Validity—Such Power of Attorney fully authorized Special Attorney to sell such land and present document for Registration in office of Sub-Registrar ,concerned—Such Power of Attorney was not confined only to District “L”—Special Attorney had authority to execute sale-deed and present same for registration at District “S”.

2007  YLR  2662   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Mst. AZRA PARVEEN       VS       MUHAMMAD YOUSAF

Sections  182 & 188—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.54—Power-of-attorney—Execution of sale-deed on basis of such Power-of-Attorney—Petitioners were .wife. and husband inter se and respondent was brother of one of the petitioners—Petitioner claimed that respondent had executed power-of attorney in her favour and she in exercise of powers vested in her under said power of attorney executed sale-deed in respect of property of respondent in favour of petitioner/her husband—Respondent who denied execution of said power of attorney filed suit against petitioners which was dismissed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court setting aside judgment and decree of the Trial Court, decreed suit of respondent—validity—Marginal witnesses of power of attorney and agreement arrived at between respondent and petitioner, appeared and proved execution of said two documents by respondent—Said witnesses were consistent between themselves and were credible—Sum mentioned in the agreement was paid through cheque which. was received by respondent through his hank account—Receipt of amount had also been admitted by respondent in his testimony—Said circumstances were in themselves sufficient to prove execution of agreement and power of attorney by respondent—Timing of the payment through cheque and contemporaneous agreement and power of attorney in circumstances were rightly considered by the Trial Court as proving defence put forth by petitioners and belying the case set up by respondent—Appellate Court below had not dealt with such aspects of the case nor had it met the. reasoning of the Trial Court—Appellate decree being result of non-reading of record, was set aside and consequently decree of the Trial Court stood restored.

2007  CLC  64   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Mst. ZOHRA BAI MERCHANT through L.R section       VS       Mst. FATIMA KHANUM

–Sections  186 & 188—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.39—General Power of Attorney—Principal not exclusive owner of property authorizing agent to sell whole property—Validity—Such Power of Attorney being in excess of principal’s authority would hav

2006  CLC  1827   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN       VS       Mst. BATOOL BEGUM

— SECTION 188—Power of attorney—Authority of attorney—Object and scope—Authority conferred by principal on his agent, must be construed strictly and nothing is to be imported to give a different meaning to phraseology than the word used—Object and s

2006  YLR  1968   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD HANIF       VS       MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KHUSHAB

—-S.17—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Sections 186 & 188—Decree on basis of award after making same rule of Court, obtaining of—Reference of dispute to arbitration by attorney—Absence of specific power in Power of Attorney permitting attorney to enter int

2006  YLR  1968   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD HANIF       VS       MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KHUSHAB

#NAME?

2006  CLC  79   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MOEEN AKHTAR       VS       Dr. ABDUS SATTAR through Legal Heirs

—- SECTION 12—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Sections 188 & 214—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XV, R.I — Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Agreement by husband as general attorney of his second wife in favour of his sons from first wife—

2006  CLC  79   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MOEEN AKHTAR       VS       Dr. ABDUS SATTAR through Legal Heirs

—Sections  188 & 214—Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Sections 18 & 47—Agreement to sell by attorney in favour of his real sons—Non registration of agreement—Effect—Such agreement would not put owner or subsequent purchaser through whatever means at alarm

2006  CLC  79   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MOEEN AKHTAR       VS       Dr. ABDUS SATTAR through Legal Heirs

— SECTION 12—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Sections  188 & 214—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.79 & 117—Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Sections 18 & 47—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XV, R.1—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell—Agreement b

2006  PLD  168   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Messrs M. A. MAJEED KHAN through Proprietor       VS       KARACHI WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD

–Sections  186 & 188—Acts of an agent without authority, even if proved, would not affect principal.

Messrs Abdul Latif Abdul Shakoor Madraswala v. The Karachi Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. PLD 1981 Kar. 367 and Muhammad Saghir Ahmad v. Qurban Ali and others 19

2005  PLD  705   SUPREME-COURT

MUHAMMAD YOUSUF SIDDIQUI       VS       Haji SHARIF KHAN through L.Rs.

— SECTION 12(2)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Sections  188 & 214—General Power-of-attorney—Fraud and misrepresentation—Recitals of deed of power of attorney showed that the primary object of the Principal was  improvement of property—Raising of flats on the

2005  PLD  705   SUPREME-COURT

MUHAMMAD YOUSUF SIDDIQUI       VS       Haji SHARIF KHAN through L.Rs.

—Sections  188 & 214—General Power-of-Attorney in connection with property—Validity of acts under Power-of-Attorney—Scope.

2005  YLR  2761   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ASIF RAEES AHMAD       VS       Mst. ZUBAIDA BIBI

— SECTION 188—Joint general power of attorney—Agent’s authority to act for each single principal, separately and independently under joint general power of attorney giving stereotype powers to secure allotment of lands against claims, contest cases for su

2005  YLR  2623   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

AMANAT ULLAH       VS       ASMAT ULLAH

—S.188—Power of attorney—No person could act as attorney on behalf’ of a person nor he could make any statement having the effect of relinquishment of any right in immovable property worth Rs.100 or more situated in urban area, unless he was holding

2005  YLR  1443   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Babu JAVED AHMAD, TEHSIL NAZIM       VS       ABDUL HAFEEZ

–Sections  5 & 188—Auction—Bid made at an auction is in the nature of an offer which does not mature into contract at all till its acceptance—Auctioneer acts as an agent of the seller and if he has authority to accept the bid, concluded contract comes in

2005  CLC  1839   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN       VS       Mst. IQBAL BIBI through L.Rs.

—Sections  188 & 214—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Article 129(p) — Sale of wife’s property by husband as her attorney in favour of his real cousin—Denial of sale by wife—Cousin alleging sale in his favour by attorney on payment of price made against a

2005  CLC  1839   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN       VS       Mst. IQBAL BIBI through L.Rs.

—Sections  188 & 214—Sale of principal’s property by Attorney in favour of his blood relation—Validity—Such sale would be treated as transfer in favour of Attorney himself, which could not be done or legalized without special permission from principal–

2005  CLC  1839   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN       VS       Mst. IQBAL BIBI through L.Rs.

—Sections  188 & 214—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.199—Sale of wife’s property by husband as her attorney in favour of his real cousin—Denial of transaction by wife—Effect—Onus to prove such sale to be with wife’s consent would shift on benefic

2004  SCMR  618   SUPREME-COURT

Mst. GHULAM FATIMA       VS       MUHAMMAD DIN

—-Sections  188, 214 & 215—Sale of land by Attorney to his own wife without consulting the principal—Validity—Attorney, if wanted to exercise such power in his own favour, had to consult the principal before doing so—Such sale was liable to be struck

2004  CLD  373   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Lt.-Gen. (Retd.) SHAH RAFI ALAM       VS       LAHORE RACE CLUB

—-Sections 161, 6 & 31—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Chap. X [Sections 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  494   SUPREME-COURT

JAMIL AKHTAR       VS       LAS BABA

—-Sections  188 & 214—Power of Attorney Act (VII of 1882), S.2—Agent–Transfer of principal’s property—Duty of agent—Appointment of a general attorney is a matter of routine as well as requirement of principal and is never indicative by itself of a sa

2003  YLR  2494   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY       VS       ICE PAK INTERNATIONAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS OF PAKISTAN

#Error?

2003  CLC  138   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

SANA ULLAH       VS       MUHAMMAD RAFIQ

Contract Act 1872 —- SECTION 188—Authority of attorney—Extent—If power of attorney is given for various purposes, governing object of which being power to sell, all other purposes must be read as ancillary to such governing object.

2003  MLD  1095   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Lt. MUHAMMAD SOHAIL ANJUM KHAN       VS       ABDUL RASHEED KHAN

—-S.188—Agent’s authority—Scope—Agent could not convey property, when executant of power of attorney was bereft of any right or title in property.

2003  PLD  16   KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD YOUSUF       VS       UROOJ (PRIVATE) LTD.

—-O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12—Contract Act- (IX of 1872), Sections  182 & 188—Temporary injunction—Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell against agent and his principal—Power of attorney executed by principa

2003  PLD  16   HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

MUNIR HUSSAIN       VS       MUHAMMAD ASLAM

—-Sections  188, 214 & 215—Object of appointing agents or attorneys is that a specified person is authorized by the executant to act for and in the name of the person executing it—Power given to joint agents—Effect—Where a power is delegated by a prin

2002  SCMR  1106   SUPREME-COURT

Mst. SHAMIM BEGUM       VS       MAQBOOL HUSSAIN

—-Sections  8 & 22—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.188—Constitution of Pakistan (1973); Arts.l72 & 185(3)—Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider, whether power of attorney executed by step-mother of petitioner in favour of husband of petitioner

2002  PLD  290   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Malik MUHAMMAD MAJEED       VS       GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

Contract Act 1872 —- SECTION 188—Extent of agent’s authority—Where an attorney/representative/ agent did anything beyond the instructions given by his principal, the same would not be binding upon the principal.

2002  MLD  550   LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

1. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS PUNJAB PRIVATIZATION BOARD

#Error?