| |

Pannalal Jankidas Vs. Mohanlal and Anr.

Citation: AIR 1951 SC 144 Facts Plaintiffs, as agents of the defendants had stored the goods in Government godowns, requiring permit to supply them to the defendants. In the meanwhile, due to the fire in godown, the goods got burned up and plaintiffs got compensation of 50% of damage caused in respect of the goods as…

|

Jagannath Patnaik vs Sri Pitambar Bhupati Harichandan

Jagannath Patnaik vs. Sri Pitambar Bhupati Harichandan AIR 1954 Ori 241 Key Words: implied condition, agency FACTS Defendant was the heir of the property of the deceased who had before his death employed plaintiff as the ‘dewan’ of the said property for a continuous period of 7 years. Plaintiff brought the present suit when defendant terminated…

|

State of Madras v. Jayalakshmi Rice Mill Contractors Co. and Ors.

State of Madras v. Jayalakshmi Rice Mill Contractors Co. and Ors. AIR 1959 AP 352 (Difference between agency and license) FACTS: The Food Procurement Order, authorised the licensees (rice millers in the Districts of East Godavari, West Godavari and Krishna) to procure rice and paddy from, the producers to sell them in the market at…

|

Narandas Morardas Gaziwala & Ors vs S. P. Am. Papammal& Anr.

Narandas Morardas Gaziwala & Ors. v. S. P. Am. Papammal & Anr. 1966 SCR 38 (agent’s right to claim for accounts) FACTS: Narandas Morardas Gaziwala and Ors. a partnership firm, carrying on business in lace and silver thread at Surat had dealings with another firm, Krishna and Company – who acted as their agents for…

|

Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co. v. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Kuchwar Lime & Stone Co. v. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. & Anr. 1969 AIR 193 (Implied Agency) FACTS: A quantity of coal was booked by a Colliery to the appellant Company carriage to Banjari station on the respondent Railway’s line and the freight on the consignment was to be paid by the appellant…