Find a Lawyer

ADAM LIMITED versus MITSUI & CO.

Plaintiff alleges compensation and damages for breach of contract by alleged agent of Sections 2, 73, 235, 238 and 182 of the Contract Act 1872 (v. 1908), 0 1, RR 6 and 9 Contracting Agent. Whether the person who was the agent defendant signed the contract on behalf of the defendant was not offered any authority to be the agent of the defendant, the defendant having signed any contract on his behalf. Was denied. This person can be considered as the agent acting for the principal in the absence of authority in this case, because of the question of contractual liability, the person claiming to be the defendant's agent was a necessary party, however, must But there will be no defeat for the non-joiner of the party plaintiff. Did not impose such person as the party would nevertheless commit such misconduct who signed the agreement on behalf of the defendants as the authorized agent of the DK. The plaintiff was not responsible for payment of compensation / damages for breach of contract. criminal advocate from Chashma lawyer