Find a Lawyer

ABDUL ABID versus SIDDIQUE MOTI

A. VIII, R2 Contract Act (IX of 1872), Section 226 The trial court sued the suit agent for recovering the principal amount, jointly and severally against the two defendants finding that defendant No. 2 The defendant was the No.1 and the defendant's agent. The No. 1 Appellate Court reversed the trial court's finding and found that as to defendant 2, the relationship between the defendants, if any, was of no consequence. Only ordered to prosecute defendant 2, who was the agent of defendant 1, and the case against defendant No 1 was dismissed. The finding given by the appellate court regarding the defendants' liability was inconsistent with the evidence on record. Plaintiff had entered into an agreement with Plaintiff No. 2, who acted as Agent for Defendant No. 1, and Plaintiff traded with Plaintiff No. 2 as Agent Shares. Section 226 of Section 226 of the Contract Act 1872 provides for the condition that where the contract is made by an agent, the obligations performed by an agent shall be executed in the same manner and so on. Results will appear as if the agreement was made. The Principal was personally responsible and the Principal would be responsible for the agreement that the Agent made through the Plaintiff and withholding his money, he was entitled to appropriate compensation, as well as Compensation was also paid 10% annually to the plaintiff from the date of filing the case until the approval of the decision and order by the appellate court which the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed. famous supreme court advocate from Lakimarwat lawyer