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. If there was an agent, protect innocent people working with a corporate entity, the principal's express authority to enter into a particular contract, the contract was valid even though in reality he had no such authority. No written permission of the principal was required before the contract was entered into by the agent with no evidence available on record. To prove the market rate of goods on the day of infringement, therefore, the plaintiff's High Court cannot be denied any damages and the order passed by the Single Judge Intra Court was dismissed under the circumstances. \ r \ n
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009
