Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Modi & Co vs Union Of India on 7 December, 1967
15. Adopting the principle of strict construction of a Power of Attorney, the first question that is required to be answered is whether the Power of Attorney, Ext. P-1 was meant to confer the authority on the agent to act only in respect of the joint affairs or joint property of the co-principals or it was in respect of the individual affairs and effects of each principal. In Ext. P-1 at three places the expression used is: "our Power of Attorney to act on our behalf and we empower the said person"; then again "on our behalf in all departments", and then lastly, "acts done and effected by the agent shall be deemed to be the acts done and effected by the principals." Mr. Gopalakrishnayya said that it would be extraordinary to hold that the expression "on our behalf" as disclosing a conjoint action on behalf of more than one person could ever be interpreted by any canon of construction as one on behalf of each individual. He said that apart from the strict construction the Court must put on a Power of Attorney, where the terms of the written contract are clear and unambiguous it is impermissible for the Court to take into consideration the other circumstance's to determine the intention of the parties. When a contract is reduced to writing, undoubtedly the Court must look at the terms of the contract and proceed on the assumption that the parties intended what they have said and if the terms are unambiguous the Court must give effect to the terms of the contract. However, it is well establish ed that in considering a contract it is legitimate to take into account the surrounding circumstance's for ascertaining the intention of the parties (vide Modi & Co. v. Union of India) .
Section 82 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
1