https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313157 The HC overturned the lower courts' decisions, ruling in favor of the plaintiff. It held that the contract was not illegal under Section 23 of the Contract Act, allowing the plaintiff to recover money realized by the defendant. The Court clarified that the defendant, acting as an agent, did not violate Order XXI, Rule 16 of the CPC, and distinguished the case from English precedents. The judgment emphasized that the agency was innocent, and the contract was enforceable, remanding the case for further proceedings. Both judges concurred on the contract's validity and the plaintiff's right to recovery. en-us Mon, 02 Aug 1920 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:56:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313157 The HC overturned the lower courts' decisions, ruling in favor of the plaintiff. It held that the contract was not illegal under Section 23 of the Contract Act, allowing the plaintiff to recover money realized by the defendant. The Court clarified that the defendant, acting as an agent, did not violate Order XXI, Rule 16 of the CPC, and distinguished the case from English precedents. The judgment emphasized that the agency was innocent, and the contract was enforceable, remanding the case for further proceedings. Both judges concurred on the contract's validity and the plaintiff's right to recovery. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 02 Aug 1920 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313157