Skip to main content

A juristic entity can ratify the acts done on its behalf expressly or impliedly

In United India Periodicals Pvt. Ltd, vs CMYK Printech Ltd., the defendant had argued that the compromise settlement has been fraudulently signed by one of its old employees, who earlier had the authority of the board but the same permission have been revoked by the board much before the impugned settlement. The defendants argued that under the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC satisfaction of the Court about a valid agreement or compromise is a mandatory requirement. According to him, a settlement agreement entered into by a person acting on behalf of the company ostensibly on the basis of a general authorization made fifteen years before and the manner in which the settlement took place without any opportunity for the Board of Directors of the company being apprised about the proposed terms of settlement was illegal.

The Delhi High Court deciding against the defendant referred to Valapad Co-operative Stores Limited Vs. Srinivasa Iyer, AIR 1964 Kerala 176 it has been held as under:-

"7. In the case of an apparent authority, one has first of all to find out in respect of what transaction an agent has apparent authority and towards whom. That the apparent or the ostensible authority is no authority at all as between the principal and the agent and that it is different from express or implied authority is clear from the following statement of law by Mr. J.H. Watts, the learned editor of Smith's Mercantile Law:
"There is a clear distinction between the proper use of the two expressions "implied authority" and "ostensible authority." The former is a real authority, the exercise of which is binding not only as between the principal and third parties, but also as between principal and agent. It differs only from an express authority in that it is conferred by no express words in writing, but is to be gathered from surrounding circumstances. The term "ostensible authority", on the other hand, denotes no authority at all. It is a phrase conveniently used to describe the position which arises when one person has clothed another with, or allowed him to assume, an appearance of authority to act on his behalf, without actually giving him an authority either express of implied, by which appearance of authority a third party is misled into believing that a real authority exists. As between the so-called principal and agent such "ostensible authority" is of no effect. As between such principal, however, and the third party it is binding, on the ground that the principal is estopped from averring that the person whom he has held out and pretended to be his agent is not in fact so." (Smith and Watts' Mercantile Law 8th Ed. 1924, P. 177, note (a).)

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more