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signed by one of its old employees, who earlier had the authority of the board but the same permission have been revoked by the board much before the impugned settlement.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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more