The counsel seeks permission to approach the Dias.

“Much Obliged“
Good afternoon to the Hon’ble bench.
If it may please, the counsel seeks permission to address the bench as your Lordship /
Ladyship. (Now, if only male judges or only lady judges are present then you can use
the following phrase).

“Much Obliged your Lordship.”

OR

When the bench consists of both male and female judges:

Speaker: The counsel recognizes the gracious presence of your Ladyship, however,
for the convenience of the proceedings, the counsel seeks permission to address the
bench as your Lordship/ Ladyship.

Then say: “Much obliged your Lordship/ Ladyship”

Speaker: The counsel is appearing before the Hon’ble Court in the matter of Mr.
Ganpath Shukla V St. Bishop School Of Management, on behalf of the Appellant,
We’ve first filed the case in the hon pune city civil court and agreed from their
judgement were filing an appeal before the honble high court Under section 96
(Appeal from original decree )of the civil procedure code

Your Lordships, there are two main issues involved in the present case.

The counsel will be dealing with the first and the second issue and would be speaking
for 7 mins, respectfully reserving 3 mins for the rebuttals.

Speaker: The counsel seeks permission to begin with the Statements of Facts.

Much Obliged your Lordship,

St. Bishops school of management,pune planned a grand starburn music festival in

association with Vaidya and bhonge event management and co. and dean of
SBSM(mr. varad Sinha) made an announcement of the same in his college speech
where he asked the interested student to set up their business ventures.
Ganpath Shukla ,student of the college confirmed his allocation of lots by signing an
allocation agreement and paid 1lakh rupees for availing the lots and received copy of
receipt of the deposit and allocation agreement bearing official seal and stamp of the
college from the designated members of the management boards.

He communicated his business blueprint including financial details with professor

ghag who was HOD of human resources studies in the same college through email
dated 30th march 2022 and in the same email he asked for a letter acknowledging his
role and responsibility in the festival from prof ghag and received the letter of
acknowledgement bearing the official seal and stamp of the college,as req by him.

On 14th April 2022(week prior to fest),ganpath sent a mail to prof ghag stating that the
lots will be vacated a day after the end of fest i.e 26th April 2022 due to some logistic
issues. And asked for the permission of the same. He received the permission of the
same from prof ghag on 16th April 2022 via email.

Due to extension of one day,SBSM received blacklash of 30000 from zeus pvt ltd,a
private event management company whom they’ve leased the ground for holding an
exhibition and SBSM decided to recover the damages from ganpath’s security deposit.

On 15th may 2022,ganpath filed a civil suit before pune city civil court for breach of
court and recovery of damages and the court dismissed the suit on the grounds of
invalid alteration of contract between the parties. Hence we’ve filed an appeal before
the hon’ble Bombay high court.

The counsel seeks permission to proceed with the pleadings.

Your lordship, the first issue is professor ghag was acting in the capacity of an agent
of the respondent while corresponding with the appellant which the counsel would be
establishing on three grounds.

A) According to section 182 of the contract act, the act of Professor ghag fulfils all
the conditions of creation of agency. Section 182 defines agent as “a person
employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealings with
third persons.” The concept of “agency” was explained in P.krishna Bhatta V
mundila Ganapathi Bhatta AIR 1955 Mad 648.
(it is only when he acts as a representative of the other in business negotiations,
that is to say, in the creation,modification or termination of contractual
obligations,between the other and third persons,that he is an agent)

B) The agency created herein-above is an implied agency under section 186 and
187 of the contract acts. Sec 187 states that “An authority is said to be implied
when it is to be inferred from the circumstances of the case;and things spoken
or written, or the ordinary course of dealing, may be accounted circumstances
 of the case.” The ordinary course of dealing can be proved through the email
conversations dated 30th march 2022 which happened between the appellant
and prof ghag where he asked for letter of acknowledgement and received the
same bearing the official seal and stamp from the college as req by him.

C) Hence the board is estopped (implied agency of estoppel states that “where a
principal has by his voluntary act placed an agent in such a situation that a
person of ordinary prudence,conversant with business usages and the nature of
the particular business,is justified in presuming that such agent has authority to
perform a particular act and therefore deals with the agent,the principal is
estopped as against such third persons from denying agent’s work”….IRVINE
C in Johnson v Milwaukee 1895 46 NEB 480,Borrowed from john s. ewart)
from taking any coercive action against the appellant under section 237 of the
contract acts. Section 237 states that “Liability of principal inducing belief that
agent’s unauthorized acts were authorized.—When an agent has,
without authority, done acts or incurred obligations to third
persons on behalf of his principal, the principal is bound by such acts
or obligations, if he has by his words or conduct induced such third persons to
believe that such acts and obligations were within the scope of the agent’s
authority.”

The council would like to address any issues that the bench might’ve so far if
not the council seeks permission to move to the second issue.

Second issue is That the allocation agreement is altered by the effect of

correspondence between the appellant and prof ghag which the counsel will be
establishing three grounds
A) That the agent can perform the obligations of the principal since it is an
implied agency and the agent had the power to do so under section 188 which
states that “an agent having an authority to do an act, has authority to do every
lawful thing which is necessary in order to do such act.
B) That the appellant had legitimate reasons to believe that the contract has been
altered vide the acts of the agent through the email conversations they had
where the agent used the terms as “our end” and the appellant received the
letter of acknowledgement bearing the official seal and stamp of college.
C) The respondent cannot deduct the amount from the security money deposited
by the appellant as they cannot take advantage of clause 4 of the agreement as
it would mean them taking undue advantage of their own faults since there was
no breach of contract.

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before this Hon’ble Court, that it
may be graciously pleased to grant the following reliefs:
 A. Adjudge and declare that Prof. Ghag was acting in the capacity of an agent
of the Respondent while corresponding with the Appellant

B. That the Allocation Agreement is altered by the effect of correspondence

between the Appellant and Prof. Ghag

C. That the Appellant is entitled to a refund of Rs. 30,000 wrongly deducted by

the board.

Also, pass any other order that it may deem fit in the favor of the Appellant to
meet the ends of equity, justice and good conscience.
For this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall remain duty bound forever

It was pleasure arguing before the honble court.

Chairman L.I.C v. Rajiv Kumar Bhaskar

2003 ACJ 86

HELD:

1. The expression “agent” in this case may not mean to be one within the
meaning of the LIC of India (Agents) Regulation, 1972; but would mean an
 agent in ordinary sense of the term. The use or omission of the word “agent”
is not conclusive to determine the legal nature of the relationship.
2. Keeping in view the fact that the Corporation did not make any offer to the
employees nor would directly make any communication with them
regarding payment or non-payment of the premium or any other matter in
relation thereto and the inability of the employee to approach the insurer
directly, show that they were to treat their employers as ‘agents’ of the
Corporation and the employer had a key role to play in this whole affair.
Furthermore, even the terms and conditions of the policy were to be
performed only through the employer. This only points to the fact that the
employers would be the agents of the insurer.
3. When the existence of an agency relationship would help to decide an
individual problem and the fact permits a court to conclude that such a
relationship existed at a material time, then whether or not any express or
implied consent to the creation of an agency may have been given by one
party to another, the court is entitled to conclude that such relationship was
in existence at that time for the purpose in question.

4. Implied Authority
5. Implied authority is that which is inferred from the conduct of the parties, or
from nature of the employment. Divided into four types: (i) incidental
authority- authority to do that which is ordinarily or necessarily incidental to
the due performance of the express authority; (ii) usual authority- authority
to do whatever is done by persons occupying positions in particular trades or
businesses; (iii) customary authority- authority to act in accordance with the
custom and usage of the place where agent acts and (iv) authority derived
from the circumstances of the case, the residuary category.
6. Note: See Ss 186, 187 of Indian Contract Act