https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293701 The suit against defendant No. 3 was dismissed as the defendant acted as an agent for the 2nd defendant, with no independent liability. The application of Section 230 of the Contract Act was crucial in determining that the agent cannot be personally liable for contracts entered into on behalf of the principal. The suit was also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction against the 1st defendant. The judgment emphasized the legal principles governing agent-principal relationships and directed the dismissal of the suits accordingly. en-us Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Feb 2021 15:31:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293701 The suit against defendant No. 3 was dismissed as the defendant acted as an agent for the 2nd defendant, with no independent liability. The application of Section 230 of the Contract Act was crucial in determining that the agent cannot be personally liable for contracts entered into on behalf of the principal. The suit was also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction against the 1st defendant. The judgment emphasized the legal principles governing agent-principal relationships and directed the dismissal of the suits accordingly. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293701