https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200490 The Court held that the defendant, acting as an agent, was not personally liable under the contract for goods supplied. The jurisdiction was established, and the limitation period was deemed not applicable. The defendant's role as an agent was confirmed, absolving personal liability for deficiencies in goods. The Court found the contract binding between the plaintiffs and the foreign principal, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. The appeal favored the defendant, resulting in the suit's dismissal with costs. The foreign principal, also a defendant, was not pursued, leading to the dismissal of the suit against them. en-us Tue, 23 Jan 1923 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Mar 2018 12:16:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200490 The Court held that the defendant, acting as an agent, was not personally liable under the contract for goods supplied. The jurisdiction was established, and the limitation period was deemed not applicable. The defendant's role as an agent was confirmed, absolving personal liability for deficiencies in goods. The Court found the contract binding between the plaintiffs and the foreign principal, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. The appeal favored the defendant, resulting in the suit's dismissal with costs. The foreign principal, also a defendant, was not pursued, leading to the dismissal of the suit against them. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Jan 1923 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200490