Sections 23, 73, 187 and 237 of the Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 Intra Court of Appeal Compensation and Compensation, Transaction through Agent Indoor Management, Plaintiff's Doctrine Claimed and Compensated That the plaintiff company failed to deliver the goods, despite a valid agreement between the two parties, the plaintiff company refused to enforce any contract, claiming that the plaintiffs had signed the letters whose employees were authorized to do so Were not raised by the plaintiff that the principle of indoor management was applied on the basis of any legal clause in the Companies Ordinance Applicable to a transaction entered into between a registered company and a third party with no good faith, the 1984 theory of indoor management applied to such transactions on the principle of public policy, equity and good conscience. Protect innocent persons acting in good faith with a corporate entity If the agent's parental authority to enter into a particular contract, the agreement was valid even if in fact he had no such Was not authorized The written consent of the principal was not required before the principal entered into the contract with the agent. No evidence was available on record. To prove plaintiff's market rate on the day of infringement, plaintiff did not suffer any damages to the High Court and the order passed by the Single Judge Intra Court was dropped.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009
