https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459289 The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the validity of the compromise agreement and the vakil's authority to enter into it. The HC concluded that the vakil acted within his implied authority, supported by the vakalat, and involved the plaintiff's father in the process. The court rejected the plaintiff's attempt to selectively challenge the compromise, applying the principle of approbation and reprobation, thereby underscoring the binding nature of duly executed compromise agreements and the necessity for clear authorization for legal representatives. en-us Mon, 18 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Dec 2024 12:45:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459289 The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the validity of the compromise agreement and the vakil's authority to enter into it. The HC concluded that the vakil acted within his implied authority, supported by the vakalat, and involved the plaintiff's father in the process. The court rejected the plaintiff's attempt to selectively challenge the compromise, applying the principle of approbation and reprobation, thereby underscoring the binding nature of duly executed compromise agreements and the necessity for clear authorization for legal representatives. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 18 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459289