Right of Retainer:

An agent could keep, out of any sums received on account of the principal in the business of the agency, all money due to himself in value of advances created or expenses appropriately incurred by him in conducting such business, and as well such compensation as may be payable
to him for acting as an agent.

Any agent has the authority above the principle's quantity over:

1. The sum predictable to be paid to the agent which was boned by him in the business
2. The sum that must be paid to the agent as compensation for his work in the business.

Case law
Turner Morrison & Co., Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax
In this case, the issues raised relate to whether or not within the exercise of the right of lien, the agent will become a landlord of the property of the master or not. The Port Said Salt Association Ltd., an organization incorporated within the United Kingdom. The corporation had headquartered in Egypt and happening its business in India through Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd., (the assesses) purchasable in India.

It absolutely was involved within the business of collecting the proceeds of sale and got a commission of 22.5% from the proceedings it collected. On the subsequent facts and Circumstances, it absolutely was identified as an agent under Section 43 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The Calcutta High Court held that assesses which was entrusted with the work of collecting the sale income were agents of the firm and not the post office. They received only income for the firm or association not for their personal account.

Right To Remuneration

In the absence of several special contracts, payment for the presentation of any act isn't due to the agent until the completion of such act but an agent may detain money conventional by him on account of goods sold, even as the entire of the goods consigned to him for sale may not have been sold, otherwise although the sale may not be truly complete. An agent isn't entitled to remuneration if not he's entitled to the compensation if there is a special contract to that effect. In case of the partial sale of goods, an agent can keep money or in case of not totally completion of sale.

Case law
Khursheed Alam v. Asa Ram
All agent has right to get agreed remuneration or any sensible remuneration. In the case of Khursheed Alam v. Asa Ram, the issue arises concerning the reasonable amount wanted to be given to an agent by the principal. Here the plaintiff as an agent was selected by the defendant. He was asked to sell the property situated in Lahore to anybody and was promised commission for the same. The defendant asked him to find out another client for the sale of another property.

The petitioner sold his land to his brother. The defendant was deprived of giving commission to the plaintiff as he thought the plaintiff would pay land for himself. The court held that if the second customer was the plaintiff's sibling it doesn't imply that the plaintiff was permitted compensation and in case of not having a written contract he would get a sensible amount of compensation. Vasanji Modiji v. Karsondas Tejpal.

In this case, the same issue of reasonable remuneration, arises. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a broker for the mortgage of 3 properties of the defendant. Motivated of negotiating by the bank for forty percent of the value of a property, the plaintiff was unsuccessful to negotiate with the defendant. Regarding 3 months later, the defendant borrowed through another broker, Rs. 110000 from a similar bank on a mortgage of one of his properties.

Right of Lien on Principal's Property

Lien in its primary sense could be a right in one man to retain that which is legally and incessantly in his possession belonging to a different until the there and aggregated cases of the individual under lock and key are satisfied. During this essential sense is given by law and not by contract. The possession of the product by the person claiming the proper of lien is anterior to its exercise. If the said person isn't in possession then the exercise of the right is not possible.

The lien never emerges except if the bailee has a privilege to proceeding with ownership of the merchandise, so that if bailor has the right to take out the goods from time to time, there is no lien, in the absence of an express agreement that the goods shall remain 'in pawn' in spite of temporary removal by the bailor.

1. Right of Lien
   • The word lien intends to "hold the ownership of" as per segment 47(1) the neglected merchant of Merchandise that is in control of them is qualified for keep ownership of them till installment or delicate of the expense inside the accompanying cases that is:
   • Where the goods have been sold not including any requirement as to credit
   • Where the goods are sold on credit however the term of credit has expired
   • Where the buyer becomes ruined
   The right of lien is one of the voluntary seller's rights against the goods which is transferred to the purchaser. It is the unpaid seller's right to retain the goods until the entire cost is paid or tendered. Lien can be exercised merely for non-payment of the price and not for some other charges owing against the buyer.
   
   The right can merely be exercised on the accomplishment of two conditions:
   
   • The unpaid seller must be in real possession of goods
   • The neglected vendor can hold the products just at the installment of the cost of goods.
   
   The right of lien is not connected to the title of the goods but is worried about the possession of the goods, therefore the goods have to be in real possession of the seller in order to exercise this right, which should even be possible on the off chance that he has the products as a Bailee or a specialist and ought not basically to be the proprietor. Subsequently the merchant anyplace he has moved the reports to the purchaser his lien isn't crushed as long as he stays in the ownership of the products.
   
   But if the buyer has transferred the documents of title to a bona fide purchaser, the seller's lien is overpowered, as the seller is unacceptable to exercise a right of lien while the goods were in the hands of the transporter. Where the goods are sold on credit the right of lien is balanced during the term of credit. Excluding on end of that expression, if the goods are motionless in the possession of the seller his lien revives.
   
   The right of lien exists merely for the value of goods as especially put in Section 46(1) (a) as detailed in the case of depends on General Credit Corp. v. Morgan, The right completely Transport winning the statutory provisions and losing any reasonable considerations. The seller is so not entitled to a lien for any other charges i.e. charges for storage or the like. In the case of Somes v. British Empire Shipping Co. that where the cost has been tendered the seller can't claim to return the goods further for the expenses incurred by him on storage during the stage that he was investing the goods in the exercise of his lien.
   
   At present, since the right of lien is based merely on possession, as soon as the possession of
   goods is misplaced the right of lien is also lost. The voluntary seller loses the lien thereon.
   At the point when he takes care of business for a transporter or other Bailee for the explanation of transmission to the buyer without holding the right of the expulsion of the merchandise:
   
   • When the purchaser or his representative legally gets ownership of the goods.
   • By waiver thereof
   
   The unpaid seller of produce having a lien thereon doesn't lose his lien by reason merely that he has obtained a decree for the value of the goods. Section 47 additionally accommodates the deficiency of lien by the neglected vender inside the accompanying cases:
   
   • When he gets it done for the transporter or other Bailee with the end goal of transmission to the purchaser without holding the right of disposal of the goods.
   • When the buyer or his agent legally obtains possession of the goods.
   • By wavier of the lien.
   
   The base of the right is the non-payment of the value and thus if the buyer is eager to pay the price there is no query of exercise of the right of lien if the buyer pays the price the right of lien which might have existed previous is completed. It is given under section 47(1) that the voluntary seller is allowed to exercise his right of lien until compensation or tender of the price in respect of sure goods, the compensation of price hence terminates the seller's right to keep the goods.
   
   The seller as well loses the right of lien when he delivers the goods to a transporter other than a Bailee for the purpose of transmission to the purchaser not including reserving the right of removal of the goods. The right of lien proceeds inasmuch as the neglected merchant gets it done isn't finished and the vender has the ownership of the merchandise.
   
   According to section 48 if the seller has delivered a fraction of the goods he can exercise his right of lien on the residual part of the goods unless and until the part delivery was made under such conditions as to show the right of lien had been waived because sometimes delivery of part may function as a release of the whole. Such a waiver might be assumed when the dealer permits a time of credit to the purchaser or conveys a piece of the merchandise to the purchaser or his representative.
    
2. Banker's Lien
   A broker's lien, while it's not avoided by special contract, express or suggested, stretches out to all bills, checks, and cash endowed or paid to him, and all protections stored with him, in his character as a banker. Rigorously, it is bound to protections and properties in the authority of the banker; and in regard of things which has a place with the client, and held by the bank as security; regardless of whether they are in something very similar or various branches.
   
   In the event that thing is in control of the bank, however, claimed by the client, has no privilege of lien over it. A store of assets with a banker is dependent upon the investor's lien for the client's overall obligations to him, except if can demonstrate consent to surrender his overall lien. Consequently, if a specific sum is because of a bank in one record, it might hold as security or other portable that came into its hand in another record; including reimbursement of ensuing advances.
   
   A banker's lien would likewise apply to debatable instruments transmitted by client for assortment. Except if, in any case, coordinated, the returns of such assortment might be utilized by the bank for diminishing the client's charge balance.
    
3. Extent of the right of lien
   The extent of bailee's lien is in regard to services including the activity of work or expertise delivered by him in regard to the products bailed. The services delivered with the end goal of lien should be restricted to the work or ability used by the bailor over the products bailed; the lien has nothing to do with some other sort of services.
   
   Such work and ability more likely than not been spent, and thirdly, the lien apply just to such products over which the bailee has presented his work and expenses, and not to different merchandise. Nor does any lien connect to products bailed to an individual with the end goal of his working with it, and not upon it.
   
   Simple making arrangement for capacity of products in a go down for installment would not draw in his An arrangement since no improvement in the merchandise does not happen, nor is any work or expertise practiced in regard of such products.
    
4. Lien an implied pledge
   A banker's lien is an overall lien perceived by law. The overall lien on the banker is viewed as something in excess of a normal lien; it's an implied pledge. This privilege combined with rights u/s 43 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881permits bills, notes, and cheques, of the banker, being viewed as a holder for worth to the extent of the total in regard of which the lien exists can understand them when due; however on account of the other debatable instruments for example bearer bonds, coupons, and share warrants to bearer, coming into the broker's hands and accordingly getting obligated to the lien, the personality of a pledge empowers the banker to sell them on default, if a period is fixed for the installment of the development, or, where no time is fixed, after demanding for reimbursement and sensible notification of expectation to sell and apply the returns in the liquidation of the sum because of him . The privilege of offering reaches out to all properties and protections having a place with a client in the possession of a banker, aside from title deeds of steady property which clearly can't be sold.

Case law
Valpy v. Gibson
Goods were sold and sent by the dealers in line with the purchaser to the transportation specialists of the purchaser and were put on board a boat by those specialists. In this manner, they were re-landed and sent back to the vendors with the end goal of re-pressing. While they were as yet in the ownership of the vendors for that reason, the purchaser got wiped out. Immediately the dealers wouldn't convey them to the purchaser's trustee in liquidation endless supply of the cost. Held, that seller had lost their lien by delivering the goods to the shipping agents, and their denial to deliver the goods to the trustee was illegitimate.

Union Bank of India v. K.V. Venugopalan
It was held by the court that the fixed store cash stopped with the bank is stringently a credit to the bank. The investor regarding the FD is a borrower. The contributor would appropriately stop to be the proprietor of the cash in fixed deposit. The said cash becomes cash of the bank, empowering the bank to do as it enjoys that nonetheless, with the commitment to reimburse the obligation on development. In a similar decision, it was additionally held that the bank being a debt holder in regard to the cash in FD reserved no right to pass into services the doctrine of banker's lien and the cash in Fixed Deposit.

Right to be indemnified

The business will undoubtedly repay the legitimate lawful act done by his agent in exercise of the authority given upon him. The agent should act as Indicated by the principal as the agent is illustrative of the principal and act completely for his benefit.

Case law
Kishan Lal v. Bhanwar Lal
In this important case, the offended party was an agency both at Jodhpur and Indore in the name of "Kanmal Surajwal and Kanmal Kishwnmal" individually and the litigant went into a few agreements for the buy and deal through the offending party firm at Indore. The exchange demonstrated unrewarding to the litigant and with the exception of a little benefit of Rs 103 annas and all of the rest exchange finished in misfortune and misfortune accumulated to amount of Rs 21423, the offended party paid the sum to an outsider in the interest of respondent and offended party get in all amount of Rs 11457 which respondent paid every once in a while in the offending party firm in jodhpur and the respondent needed to pay Rs 9861.

This suit was not identified with the deal and acquisition of bullion, It was suited by an agency asserting for losses and expenses brought about by him for the respondent. For this situation, Justice Mukherjee said "the agent is qualified for recuperating from the principal in all losses and expenses caused by him in the interest of principal in the lead of business or an
authorized approved by the principal.

1. Limits of Indemnity
   If an agent has incurred losses or damages, not due to his fault in that circumstance the principal has to reimburse the agent for the losses and damages incurred, the agent is not at liberty to all losses incurred by him; the principal will compensate the agent only while the losses and damages are usual and immediate.
   
   Therefore agent isn't entitled to claim indemnification from the principal if the losses and damages happen on his default or if the agent executes any contract which is further than the extent of authority in these circumstances also the principal isn't responsible to compensate the agent due to he was working outside the jurisdiction of the principal.
   
   Case law
   Duncan v. Hill
   There was no inferred promise by a purchasing principal to his agent that he will reimburse him from the results of his own wrong like indebtedness or have sold at a loss in breach of his agreement with the principal.
    
2. Lawful acts done
   It is a fundamental condition that the agent should work as per the principal, it isn't adequate that the agent played the act in good faith or the act of the agent is honest. A specialist ought to lawfully play out the act then just he/she can be repaid by the principal. Be that as it may, an agent could guarantee the reimbursement in the event that he/she doesn't know about the unlawfulness of act.
   
   Case law
   Kantilal v. Ranchhoddass
   the Bombay Securities Contract Control Act doesn't preclude going into an agreement however the agreement ought to be as per the principles, the arrangement of the Bombay Securities act bring 2 consequences:
   
   1. Contract not as per with the standards of Bombay Securities is void
   2. No case for broker will be permitted. Indeed, even an agreement is held legitimate the agent

Couldn't guarantee commission under area 6 of Stock Broker Association. The agent must be reimbursed by the principal if the agreement is void not when the agreement is unlawful. Thus, for this situation, the broker was approved by the principal to go into a transaction for the acquisition of an offer according to the demonstration for benefit of the principal; an agent is qualified to be repaid regardless of whether the agreement gets void.

Right to Compensation

The Agent has the right to be made up for any injury or loss endured by him because of the absence of expertise and competency of the Principal.