FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SARWAR LATIF ASSOCIATES
Sections 196 and 202 of the Partnership Act (I32 of 1932), sections 45, 46, 48 and 69 of the Civil Code of Conduct (V 1908), section 12 (2) of the partnership firm, deciding the court to dissolve the award in arbitration proceedings Decides on Section 12 (2), the dissolution firm under CPC is responsible for paying some amount to the partners of the judge's lender to determine such award / decree all All the partners appointed \ RCR on 25 2 1981, on which the general attorney of this company dissolved. 25 5 1982, after which such power of attorney lost its credibility and the general attorney had no authority to participate in the arbitration proceedings by the firm, thus awarding such fraud and misrepresentation. The result was. The complete termination, however, will continue as such, and its partners will continue to perform their duties until all matters are resolved, with the consent of all partners, the general attorney acted after dissolution of the firm. The rtners did not revoke such powers of attorney, thus, whatever work was done by the general attorney on behalf of all the partners would be considered a legitimate performance of duty by the principal, his agent. May also accept any unauthorized action made by the Diet Holder Firm, which did not challenge the authority of its general attorney to verify and validate it, but correctly accepted it. Such award / injunction was not the result of fraud and misrepresentation by his general attorney, under which the decision maker suffered prejudice. Didn't have to The judge's accused person made such a request with an unlawful intention
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
