Principal and agent
The proposition contended for is that the
agent authorized to part with the firms money on loan to A, B. or C had no
authority to receive repayment on their behalf. Their Lordships cannot accept
this. In their opinion the authority to invest on loan necessarily implies in
the circumstances of this case authority to receive repayment.
T.A.R.C.T. Vs. Firm of S.V.K.R. (1956) 8 DLR (P.C.) 28.
Principal can sue for recovery of moneys on promissory
note executed in favour of his agent without any formal assignment by the agent
in favour of the principal.
Deb Vs. Raisaheb Nirmal Chakladar, (1956)8 DLR 68.
Liability to account for legal relationship
of agent and principal and trustee and cestuique
trust. Responsibility to account not only for the amounts which have been
actually received but also for that which with due diligence could be received
does not rest on a co-sharer with no responsibility to undertake it.
Chandra Nandi Majumdar- Vs. Rasik Lal Nandi Majumdar (1956)8 DLR 121 (122).