- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THE appellant had filed a suit, inter alia, against the respondents. The present respondents were Defendants 1, 4 and 5 in the suit and are referred to as such hereafter. Defendant 2 is a company incorporated under the laws of France and carrying on business in France. Defendant 3 was the shipping agent of Defendant 2 and is also incorporated and resident in France. The suit was for the price of goods alleged to have been supplied by the plaintiff to Defendant 2 through the {sic shipping agent, Defendant 3) and Defendant 1. Defendant 1 was claimed to be Defendant 2's agent in India. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant against Defendants 1, 4 and 5 but decreed it in respect of Defendants 2 and 3 for the price of the goods supplied by the plaintiff together with interest at 12%. The appellant preferred an appeal from the decree insofar as the suit had been dismissed against Defendants 1, 4 and 5. The grievance of the appellant was that S.230 of the Contract Act, 1872 (for short "the Act") permitted a suit to be filed against an agent of a foreign principal. The High Court, however, came to the conclusion that since the name of the foreign principal had already been disclosed and had been made a party, Defendants 1, 4 and 5 could not be made liable.
(3.) THE High Court misconstrued S.230 of the Act. The section reads as follows: "230. Agent cannot personally enforce, nor be bound by, contracts on behalf of principal. In the absence of any contract to that effect, an agent cannot personally enforce contracts entered into by him on behalf of his principal, nor is he personally bound by them. Presumption of contract to contrary. Such a contract shall be presumed to exist in the following cases (1) where the contract is made by an agent for the sale or purchase of goods for a merchant resident abroad; (2) where the agent does not disclose the name of his principal; (3) where the principal, though disclosed, cannot be sued." ;