9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court 2. Limitation period 3. Defendant's role as agent 4. Defendant's personal liability 5. Arbitration decision and its binding effect 6. Plaintiff's conduct affecting claim 7. Deficiency in goods supplied 8. Cause of action 9. Admissibility of survey report Analysis: 1. The case involved a dispute between a firm from Delhi and a defendant from Lahore regarding a contract for the purchase of goods. The plaintiffs alleged that the goods supplied did not meet the agreed specifications, leading to a settlement agreement that the defendant failed to honor, resulting in a claim of Rs. 2,100. 2. The defendant denied personal liability, claiming to have acted as an agent for a foreign principal. The Court settled various issues, including jurisdiction, limitation, the defendant's role as an agent, liability for deficiency in goods, and the admissibility of the survey report. 3. The District Judge held the defendant liable under Section 230(1) of the Contract Act, rejecting the defense of acting as an agent. The Court found the suit within jurisdiction and not time-barred, with the defendant being aware of the survey proceedings and agreeing to them on behalf of the principal. 4. Appeals were filed by both parties, with the plaintiffs seeking interest and additional amounts, and the defendant challenging the decision on personal liability. The defendant's counsel argued that the defendant should not be personally liable based on the contract entered into. 5. The Court analyzed the correspondence between the parties and concluded that the defendant did not personally bind himself under the contract. The contract was deemed to have been directly between the plaintiffs and the foreign principal, absolving the defendant of personal liability. 6. The Court found that the defendant's actions as an agent did not amount to personal liability, even in settlement agreements and subsequent correspondence. The defendant's role was seen as that of a facilitator between the parties, with no intention to assume personal liability. 7. The Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, ruling that the defendant was not personally liable under the contract. The appeal was accepted in favor of the defendant, and the suit was dismissed with costs. The foreign principal, added as a defendant, was not pursued by the plaintiffs, leading to the dismissal of the suit against them as well.
|
