https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293893 The appeal was allowed, the decree was set aside, and the suit was dismissed. The court held that the defendant No. 1, acting as an agent, was not personally liable for the breach as the principal was disclosed in documents. Since the plaintiff did not sue the principal, M/s. Espee Trading Corporation, defendant No. 2 was not held liable. The court emphasized the need for legislative review of Section 230 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872. The respective parties were ordered to bear their costs, and the amount deposited by the appellants was to be returned with interest. en-us Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Mar 2021 11:33:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293893 The appeal was allowed, the decree was set aside, and the suit was dismissed. The court held that the defendant No. 1, acting as an agent, was not personally liable for the breach as the principal was disclosed in documents. Since the plaintiff did not sue the principal, M/s. Espee Trading Corporation, defendant No. 2 was not held liable. The court emphasized the need for legislative review of Section 230 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872. The respective parties were ordered to bear their costs, and the amount deposited by the appellants was to be returned with interest. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293893