An agency basically divided into three essential components, that are principal, agent and the third party, under agency for one contract to be successful it is important for the agent to play his role correctly, as he has pivotal role in conducting the business of the contract. The meaning of agency is lay man's term is when one person is representing another or conducts business on behalf of others.

This paper aims at getting in depth of the relation that an agent and principal have under the Indian Contract act, along with this the paper also focuses on the aspect of the test that are laid through many case laws that determine the existence of the agency relationship. It is also important to understand that the relation that the a Agent and a Principal share is a fiduciary one, also one of the aim of the paper is to clear the confusion that many some time have is that there is fine line between the duties of a servant and that of an agent.

The other part of the paper focuses on the various duties that the Agent has towards his Principal, these duties are stated under various section of the Indian Contract Act, also through this paper the researcher would like to highlight the basic framework of an agent along with the rights, duties and power that are vested in him.

Introduction
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 lays down a comprehensive structured list of provision which govern the rights, duties and liability of and Agent, and explains how does an agent play a pivotal role during the course of the contract. Not only this the Act also helps us to understand the relationship which exist between a Principal and Agent, there are certain provision that state this relation.

The aim behind doing so is to also clear the confusion that many readers have and that is the difference between an agency and dealership, because at the face of a plain reading any would think of an agent as a dealer, but is not so. The definition or as to who can be an Agent is clearly mentioned under section 182 of the Indian Contract Act.

In simple words an Agent is someone who acts on the behalf of someone else or who derives authorities from the Principal. The underlying principal that governs the concept of Agent- Principal is a Latin Maxim Qui Facit Per Alium, Facit Per Se, which when translated into English means, He who acts through another is deemed in law to do so himself. Further as to who can become an Agent is stated under section 184 of the Indian Contract Act, it is really important for us to understand the what guidelines need to be followed before we can call someone an Agent, as the true relationship of an Agent- Principal depend on the nature of trust.

The definition of an Agent, as provided under section 182 is wide broad thus it may also include any employee that works for a company, but what really distinguishes the causal employee from an Agent is the Agent's representative capacity along with the legal relationship that he shares with the Principal and the third party.

As already stated above that the definition of an Agent according to section 182 has a wide ambit, thus the courts of interpreted it meaning in a case that come up for adjudication. In the case of P. Krishna Bhatta v Mundila Ganapathi Bhatta.[1] The court observed that an agency is more of a contract of employment wherein the agent is brought into a legal relationship with the third party by the principal for the purpose of business.

In other words, an agent is a person who is vested with the representative power, or authority which is derived from the principal, so that he can make promises and legal obligation on behalf of the principal. There are certain characteristics of an agent that are distinctive in nature such as the representative character and derivative authority.

In the case of National Textile Corporation Ltd v Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad[2] the court observed that that the appellant in the instead case cannot claim itself to be with the central government, as the rights that were vested in them were derived from the central government thus making binding them in a principal- agent relation. In the above stated case, the reason the court gave for coming to this conclusion was that the Appellant was governed by the provisions of the 1995 Act and not by the central government. Thus, an agent is merely an all- encompassing hand of the principal and cannot claim independent rights.

Objective of Study:
The main objective of this research paper is to understand the duties of the agent under agency, and what are the provision that govern the duties of the agent. The main focus of this paper would be what is the duty of the agent, when it comes to avoiding conflict of interest.

Research Questions:

• What is the relation between Principal- Agent under the Indian Law?
• What is the Relationship of the Principal- Agent under the English Law?
• What are the different duties of the agent under Agency?

Research Methodology:
The researcher has used doctrinal method i.e. reference from available primary sources like Acts, Rules and Regulations to study the present questions in hand. The researcher has also taken reference from secondary sources like books, articles and newspaper reports to understand the duties of the agent under agency, and what kind of relation does it share with the principal.

Chapter I: Relationship between Principal and Agent under Indian law

Section 182 of the Indian Contract Act, gives us a brief information as to who is an Agent and what is his relationship with the Principal, what interesting to note that even though Agency depends on the true nature of relationship, there is consideration required for forming an agency.

In the case of Babulal Swarupchand Shah v South Satra (Fixed Delivery) Merchants Assn. Ltd[3] it was observed by the Bombay High Court that in order to form an Agency no formal contract is needed. What is essential, that the Principal should have attained the age of majority along with this the Principal should have a sound mind as provided by section 183 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

There are many cases that come to court for adjudication with a common issue is that can a person who merely gives advice in matters of business on behalf of the Principal, can be called as an Agent, In the case of Mohesh Chandra Bosu v Radha Kishore Bhattacherrjee[4], the court observed that a person cannot merely be called as an agent if he gives mere advice on behalf of the principal. In some cases, as there is no formal agreement between the agent and the principal, thus an agent cannot incur personal liability while contracting for his principal, and therefore necessarily need not be competent to the contract[5].

Agency is not transferable or assignable, it is so because agency is personal in character, or subjective in nature and depends on the terms and condition that the principal and agent decide upon. Agency is created by a direct appointment by the principal or by assumption that is made under the law, it is subject to ratification by the law. In short, the relationship between a principal and agent is established by the following:

• Express appointment
• Implication of law from the conduct or situation of the parties or from the necessity of case.
• Subsequent ratification by the principal

Chapter II- Relationship between Principal- Agent under the English Law

The topic of Agency is a very complex topic when it comes to the English law, it is an area that is still unexplored. Unlike the Indian law under English law no one becomes the agent of another expect by the will of the other[6]. The first time that a court in London took a matter which involved the principal to have a direct contractual relationship with third party which was facilitated by his agent was in the case of Costance v Forteye, which was decided in the year 1389. In this case an apprentice and an attorney from London brought wine, for their master, but when they were unable to pay the full payment, the agent was sent to prison. In the instead case the agent was the apprentice. The mayor decided the case in favor of the agent and ordered the master to pay the full payment, the reasoning, behind doing so is that the agent had brought the wine for the benefit of the master.

This case developed the concept of Agency under the English Law, further under the English Law a direct claim by the third party can be directly towards the principal for the contracts made by his agent for the benefit of the principal.

Under the English Law to be contracted as an agent and to be an agent to represent someone to carry on business are two very different things. There are many types of agents like a real estate agent or an agent that deals in insurance, whose business are to represent their principals while carrying out business. In these cases, to the concepts governing the law agency would apply to them Vis-à-vis to their principals also.

Chapter III: Duties of the Agent under the Indian Contract Act, 1872

Authority of an agent

What do we generally mean by the authority of an agent? The answer is simple the authority of an agent means that any act done by him which falls within his capacity binds the principal to it.
In the case of Palestar Electronics Private Limited v Additional Commissioner[7] it was observed by the court that whatever acts conducted by the agents which fall under his capacity are binding on the principal, because as stated above the underlying principle that governs the concept of Agency is Qui Facit Per Alium, Facit Per Se, which when translated into English means, He who acts through another is deemed in law to do so himself. When the agents enter into a contract with a third party, whatever obligation, duties or liabilities that arise from the following the contract should be enforced upon the principal. Under Agency the principal will face the same legal consequences as if he was the one who has entered into the contract.

In the case of Municipal Corporation Delhi v Jadish Lal[8], there were a lot of debates that to place on the topic of as what acts would fall under the category of authority of an agent and more particularly its scope.

This topic is still a topic of debate for many courts as they observe that the authority of a principal in some cases are not restricted to one authority and this sometimes creates uncertainty. Any act that is done by the agent when he is in a contractual agreement with a third party representing the principal, he is said to all these acts on behalf of the principal. These reasoning was observed in the case of Nand Lal Thanvi v LR of Goswami Brij Bhushan[9].

In the case of Ramesh v Jasbir Singh[10] it was rightly observed by the court, that the concept of Agency was developed to promote trade and not to hinder it.
Sometimes questioned are raised that what would be the liability of the principal in the case where the acts done by the agent do fall under the scope of his authority will still make the principal liable through the principle of estoppel.

The different types of authority that an agent possess are as follows:

• Actual Authority
• Apparent Authority
• Usual or Incidental Authority

Agent's Authority in an Emergency.

Duties of an Agent under the Indian Contract Act

Sections 211 to sections 221 of the Indian Contract act talk about the duties of an agent. The most important duty that an agent has is to carry out or execute the mandate laid down by the principal. The rights and the corresponding duties of an agent would be mentioned in their contract. The foremost duty of an agent is to execute the work delegated to him by the principal, if the agent fails to do so he would be solely liable for the principal's loss.

It is expected that the agent, would under all the circumstances carry out its duty with the required skill and due diligence. The court in the case of Pandurang v Jairamandas Pandurang, the court observed that the level of care or standard of care that is required by an agent while the agent conduct the business, differs from profession to profession.

In case where the agent is acting on his own will, without taking prior permission of the principal, the principal has the power to repudiate the transaction if the principal can prove that during the course of the transaction material facts were concealed to him by the agent, then any loss occurred to him would be incurred by the agent himself.

The Supreme court of India, in various cases have observed  The rule off equity is, that if an order is sent by the principal to the factor to make an insurance, and he charges his principal, as if it was made, if he never in fact made the insurance, he is considered as the insurer himself , the above was first observed by Lord Chancellor, in Tickel v Short[11], later this reasoning was adopted by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Pannalal Jankidas v Mohanlal[12]

In cases were a sub-agent is appointed it is important for the agent to make sure that he maintains the minimum standard of care and take due diligence that a prudent make would take. To some extent the above was also stated in the case law of Beni Pershad – Shambhu Nath v Narain Das- Sewa Ram[13]. When it comes to obeying the principal, the agent has to only obey those instruction and carry out only those contracts that are lawful in nature. It was observed in the case of Allahabad Bank Ltd v Sheo Bakhsh Singh,[14]

It's well within the scope of the agent to say no to the principal if the consideration of the business to carry out is unlawful. There may be cases where the instruction of the principals is ambiguous in nature, where there can be more than two interpretation the agent can assume any one of those interpretation and act accordingly, further he would not be breaching any of the contracts.

The other duties of the Agent are as follows:

1. Section 212, Duty and due diligence required by the Agent.
2. Section 213, Agents accounts.
3. Section 214, Agents duty to communicate with principal
4. Section 215, Duty to avoid, conflict of interest. (Includes section 216)
5. Section 217, Duty to remit sums.

1. Agent's Duty to use Skill and Diligence

It is expected from the Agent to use as much skill and use as much Due Diligence as he can. It is important to note that the level of Due Diligence may differ from profession to profession. It is upon the agent to compensate the principal if the principal incurs any loss due to the negligence of the agent.

However, there are cases where the Principal authorizes the agent to carry out business, and in course of carrying out the business the principal incurs losses due to the imprudent nature of the transaction, then the agent is not liable for compensating the Principal. Similar reasoning was also observed in the case of Overend and Gurney Co. v Gibb and Gibb[15].

In simple words section 211 of the Indian Contract Act lays down that the guidelines that should be followed by the agent while conducting the business. The section further states that in case where the set of instruction are missing, the agent has to conduct the business according to the customs that prevail in the business or in the place that he is conducting the business. There is some profession where in the agent does not have the authority to legally enter into a contract with a third party. For example, in the case of John v Philip, where in the court observed that a real estate agent cannot legally enter into a contract with a third party.

In cases where the instructions are missing, the agent should follow the customs that prevail in the area, for example if in the business that the agent is carrying out requires that no goods should be given on credit or a policy under which he is required not to take any product in return, he should obey those policy and customs, if he fails to do so he should be held liable.

Some of the above reasoning is adopted from the case law of Ferrer v Robbins[16], there are many professions where maintaining the secrecy and keeping the non- disclosure information is important the agent should follow it, if he fails to do so he would be absolutely be liable for the same.

In the cases where the agent has the authority to use discretionary power, he should do so by keeping in mind the position of the principal. In the case of Narendra Nath Singha v Narendra Bala Chowdhury[17], an important question was raised as how far can an agent employed be liable for the acts done by the people who work below him, must depend on the nature of the work and local usage.

In cases where the agent has to exercise his discretionary power, he needs to consider the position of the principal. In the case of Keppel v Wheeler[18], it was observed that the agent who was appointed to sell a house, received an offer, which he promptly communicated to the principal. In a matter of few days the agent received a higher bid which he failed to communicate to the principal, which resulted in a loss the principal.

In the case the agent was held liable and was directed to compensate the principal for the amount difference between to the two prices.

2. Agent's Duty to communicate to the principal

The next duty of the agent is to communicate with the principals in matter pertaining to the agency and obtain the principals instruction at every stage. In the case of Richard Phillip Phillips v William Francis Barns[19], it was observed by the court that the power of attorney gives the power to the defendant, (Agent) to proceed with the business without the instruction of the principal. The court further went on to observe that this power of attorney did not relieve them of the obligation to inform the plaintiff of all the developments pertaining to the business.
It's the duty of the agent that every possible information pertaining to the agency is communicated to the principal at the earliest, without any delay.

In the case of Salvensen & Co. v Rederi Aktiebolget Nordstjernan[20] it was held that the agent should keep the principal updated to all the relevant information regarding the agency. If there is any update or development it should be communicated to the principal at the earliest.

In the case of Pingle Venkant Rama Reddy v Padampat Singhania[21], an important duty of the agent was outlined, A principal is always bound by the knowledge of the agent if it is on a material matter, and such that the agent was bound to communicate to the principal.

There are some cases of emergency, where the agent hast the right to dispense information, which are material to the agency, in these kinds of cases if it is not possible for the agent to communicate the information to the principal, then he should act with the highest level of skill and due diligence.

3. Agent's Duty to avoid Conflict of Interest

The next duty of the agent is to avoid conflict of interest, between his duty and interest of the of the principal. This thing is very important for a Fiduciary relationship to work. This duty of the agent is governed by section 215 and 216 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 respectively.

Section 215 of the Act, states that what are the rights of the principal when the agent acts on his own account, without prior permission of the principal. In this case the principal has certain rights that he may enforce against the agent. One of those rights are to repudiate the transaction if:

1. any material facts have been dishonestly concealed from him by the agent
2. the dealing conducted by the agent have caused loss to him or proved disadvantageous to him.

According to this section one of the main reason for having a conflict is that the agent may have a personal interest in the transaction. As even stated, before one of the essential elements of agency is trust, thus under no circumstances should the agent put himself before the interest of the Principal.

In the case of Boulton Bros & Co. Ltd v New Victoria Mills Co. Ltd[22] , the court laid down that if a circumstance arises where in there is a conflict that is arising, it is the duty of the agent to disclose any understanding that would incur him a gain, from any business that is conducted with a third party.

If the agent fails to do so the business dealing would be considered as fraud and the principal has the right to rescind the transaction, that occurred between the third party and the agent.
An example to support the reasoning, is once a stockbroker was appointed by his principal to buy some shares on his behalf, in the due course of time the agent submitted some documents to the principal, showing that the buying of the shares is already into effect. The documents actually showed that the agent is transferring his own shares to the principal.

This example is similar to the facts of the case De Busche v Alt[23], the court in the case had allowed the principle to treat the transaction as a fraudulent one as the agent had dishonestly not disclosed the material facts, and had incurred gain.

Therefore, if the agent misuses his position or any confidential information pertaining to the agency or the property of the principal, it would not only be a ground to terminate the agency but the liability of this would extend beyond the termination of the agency. In the case of Armstrong v Jackson[24], after considering and having a lot of debate the court come to a decision that the agent, may not deal with the principal's property unless he has prior permission, or the subject matter of the agency.

A very interesting situation come in front of the court in the case of Charter v Trevelyan[25], where in the agent who was employed to sell a particular commodity himself become the purchaser. This move was questioned in the court. The court held that the move of the agent was a valid one if he could prove that this was with the prior permission of the principal, or the full price of the commodity is paid, this must be shown beyond reasonable doubt and clearness.

The law Commission of India, in one of its reported also stated that it was sufficient for the principal to show that the agent was acting on his own without obtaining the principal's consent, if he is successful in establishing this, he further does not need to establish the dishonesty factor.

There may be cases where the agent is appointed by two principals, in this situation there might be times where the agent would be situations, where in the duty towards one principal would raise a conflict of interest in respect to another. In the case of Anglo African Merchants Ltd. v. Bayley[26], an agent was hired by two principals at the same time, both were into the same business, the court in the case held that the work of the agent requires him to be both loyal and trust worthy, if he is in a position to receive information from the other side, in connection to the work undertaken by the other principal, he should inform the principal about this. If he fails to do so he is liable to pay the principal any kind of remuneration.

Duty Not To Make Secret Profit

The other aspect of this principle is the duty of the agent not to make any secret profits and this is governed by section 216 of the Indian Contract Act. This section answers our questions pertaining to as what are secret profit? In simple words any profit, or earning that are above his agreed remuneration that he derives from the agency, in a way it is misusing his position as an agent as he would not have been able to earn this extra salary, if he was not an agent.

There is not difference when it comes to this concept between the Indian and English law, in the case of Harrington v Victoria Graving Dock & Co[27]., even a bribe even though failed to reach the agent was held to be a way to earn secret profit by the agent, the court observed that this was a misuse of his position and the agent was held liable for the same.

Also, in the case of Jaiswal Coal Co. v Fatehganj Co-op MKTG Society[28], the court held that if agent conceals the true nature of the transaction, he fails to comply to his duty and the principal is within his authority to recovery all the gain that the agent receives from this transaction.

As a part of the agent's job he is under obligation not to share any kind of confidential information that he receives from the principal, if he does so the principal may terminate the contract and hold the agent liable for any loss incurred. The above was also observed by the court in the case of Harris (L.S.) Trustees Ltd. v. Power Packaging Services Ltd[29], this case also laid that the agent can also be restrained by means of an injunction from disclosing material or confidential information.

4. Agent's duty to pay sums received for the Principals

According to section 218 of the act the agent is under obligation to pay all the money that he receives, to the principal, subject to the deduction made under section 217 of the act. The agent at all the points of the agency has to make sure that he pays all the sums received to the principals without any delay.

This duty has to be performed by the agent irrespective the fact that the money received would be from a void or an illegal transaction. In the case of Bhola Nath v Mul Chand[30] the agent did not account the money he received from a transaction that was deemed to be void and illegal in nature. The agent used this illegality of the contract as a defense.

The court held in the case that this defense was not a justifiable one, for withholding the amount or payment and directed the agent to pay full payment to the principal.

In the case of Trojen and co. v Nagappa Chettiar[31], the court had observed that in case where the agent receives or deals with the money on behalf of the principal and misappropriates this money or breaches the duty that he has towards the principal or refuses to give the money to the principal over the demand made by him then the agent is liable for the payment of the receipt with the interest amount from the day the amount was received.

This section only allows the agent to receive any kind of monetary payment on behalf of the principal and has no authority over the transaction he only acts as a catalyst and in cases where the principal could not have enforced the payment also does not enable the agent to keep it for his own use[32].

Also as stated above that the agent also has to perform this duty even if the payment arises from a void or illegal transaction, to this the Bombay High Court in the case of National Shipping Co of Saudi Arabia v Sentrans Industries Ltd[33] , The court was of the Opinion that performing such kind of act on behalf of the principal would be wrong and the agent would be well within his rights to counter claim, and he would be under no obligation to deposit the money trying to protect his principal.

5. Duty To Maintain Accounts

Accounts is an important part of any business, among other duties of the agent one of the most important duty is to maintain accounts from the principal. As a part of the duty the agent is liable to show vouchers in support of expenditure incurred by him[34].

This duty also includes the duty to remit sums to the principal. All the accounts rendered by the agent should be true and the agent under no circumstances is allowed to alter the books of accounts. The principal trusts the agent with all the business transaction and as they share a fiduciary bond the principal would expect full honesty from the agent while he prepares the books of account.

In the case of Ganeshdas Lokuram v Gangaram Dhingra[35], the court held that this duty also extends to a servant who draws a regular income whose nature of employment is that of an agent. Further there is no provision in the act that enables the agent to start a suit for accounts against the principal.

The Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Narandas Moradas Gajiwala v S.P.A.M Papammal[36], laid down that the Indian Contract Act is not exhaustive in this regard and that the right of an agent to sue the principal for accounts is an equitable right arising under special circumstances.

This duty of the agent is to be fulfilled by him irrespective of a contract, if any exists, if an agent enters in to a contract that includes receiving monetary transaction he is liable to render such account to the principal.

The duty of the agent to render accounts only extends to the principal and not to any other person, the liability of an agent to account is joint principals is joint. He is not bound to account separately to anyone and if he does so he is not absolved from his liability to others.

In the case of Haji Habib Haji Pir Mahommand v Bhikamchand Jankilal Shop[37], a situation come in front of the court where the agent was withholding the money that he received from a party on behalf of the principal. The money received was from an illegal transaction and the agent used this illegality of the transaction as a defense. The court held that this is not a valid defense and the agent is under obligation to render the books of accounts to the principal.

Conclusion:
The researcher thus would like to conclude the research paper, by explaining the meaning of the term Agency as defined by the Indian Contract Act, 1986. Further as one can understand, there are many roles played by the agent under agency. Over the years one topic of debate that has occurred again and again is that of the role that the agent sometimes has to perform, there many a times are situation wherein the agent has to step in the shoes of the principal and perform or carry out the duties of the principal, yet there are certain provision in the law that exclude the agent from the liability in general.

The main aim of the research paper is to highlight the responsibilities and underlying power of the agent, also to show how he has to adapt to different circumstances and perform his duties. The paper also highlight's the fact that in judicial interpretation the provisions of the act, does not indemnify the agent against the losses caused due to his mistakes, but to indemnify the third party.
This being cleared the agent cannot act or perform duties that are beyond his authority and in case he does exceed the authority the principal can sue him for compensation.

Bibliography
Acts/ Regulations/ Rules Referred

1. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Specific Contracts, section 124- 238)

Books

1. Contract and Specific Relief, Twelfth Edition, by Avtar Singh
2. Pollock and Mulla, The Indian Contract Act, 1872, 15th edition, by R Yashod Vardhan

Articles:

1. A Theory of Agency Law, Paula J. Dalley.
2. Agent's Authority- Judicial Interpretation.
3. Agency an Exception to the Law of Contract, by Aditi Singh.

End-Notes:

1. P. Krishna Bhatta v Mundila Ganapathi Bhatta, AIR 11955 Mad 648
2. National Textile Corporation Ltd v Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad, (2011) 12 SCC 695.
3. Babulal Swarupchand Shah v South Satra (Fixed Delivery) Merchants Assn. Ltd, (1960) Bom 671, AIR 1960.
4. Mohesh Chandra Bosu v Radha Kishore Bhattacherrjee, (1907-08) 12 CWN 28, Paragraph 32.
5. Mohomedally Ebrahim Pirkhan v Schiller, ILR (1889) 13 BOM 470.
6. Pole v Leask, [1863] 33 LJ Ch 155, 8 LT 645, (1861-73) ALL ER Rep 535 (HL)
7. Palestar Electronics Private Limited v Additional Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 636
8. Municipal Corporation Delhi v Jadish Lal, (1969) 3 SCC 389
9. Nand Lal Thanvi v LR of Goswami Brij Bhushan, AIR 1973 All 302
10. Ramesh v Jasbir Singh, AIR 2004 P&H 216
11. Tickel v Short, (1970) 2 Ves Sen 239: 28 ER 154
12. Pannalal Jankidas v Mohanlal, AIR 1951 SC 144.
13. Beni Pershad – Shambhu Nath v Narain Das- Sewa Ram, AIR 1930 Lah 974.
14. Allahabad Bank Ltd v Sheo Bakhsh Singh, AIR 1926 Oudh 576.
15. Overend and Gurney Co. v Gibb and Gibb, (1872) LR 5 HL 480..
16. Ferrer v Robbins, (1835) 2 CM & R 152.
17. Narendra Nath Singha v Narendra Bala Chowdhury, AIR 1926 Cal 988, 97 IC 200.
18. Keppel v Wheeler, (1927) 1Kb 577.
19. Richard Phillip Phillips v William Francis Barns, AIR 1937 PC 314.
20. Salvensen & Co. v Rederi Aktiebolget Nordstjernan, [1905] AC 302.
21. Pingle Venkant Rama Reddy v Padampat Singhania, AIR 1950 Bom 76.
22. Boulton Bros & Co. Ltd v New Victoria Mills Co. Ltd, AIR 1929 ALL 87.
23. De Busche v Alt, (1878) LR 8 Ch D 286.
24. Armstrong v Jackson, [1917] 2 KB 822.
25. Charter v Trevelyan.
26. Anglo African Merchants Ltd. v. Bayley, [1970] 1 QB 311.
27. Harrington v Victoria Graving Dock & Co, (1878) LR 3 QBD 549.
28. Jaiswal Coal Co. v Fatehganj Co-op MKTG Society, AIR 1975 Cal 303.
29. Harris (L.S.) Trustees Ltd. v. Power Packaging Services Ltd, (1970) 2 Lloyd's Rep 65.
30. Bhola Nath v Mul Chand, ILR (1901-03).
31. Trojen and co. v Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235.
32. Nagendrabala Dassai v. Guru Doyal Mukerji, (1903) ILR 30 1011,1014.
33. National Shipping Co of Saudi Arabia v Sentrans Industries Ltd, (2004) 2 Bom CR 1.
34. S Paul and Co v Sate of Tripura, AIR 1984 Cal 378.
35. Ganeshdas Lokuram v Gangaram Dhingra, AIR 1930 Sind 142.
36. Narandas Moradas Gajiwala v S.P.A.M Papammal, AIR 1967 SC 333.
37. Haji Habib Haji Pir Mahommand v Bhikamchand Jankilal Shop, AIR 1954 Nag 306.