Sample Read
© All rights reserved
Price : ` 895
First Published : June 2026
Published by :
Taxmann Publications (P.) Ltd.
Sales & Marketing :
59/32, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110 005 India
Phone : +91-11-45562222
Website : www.taxmann.com
E-mail : sales@taxmann.com
Regd. Office :
21/35, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110 026 India
Printed at :
Tan Prints (India) Pvt. Ltd.
44 Km. Mile Stone, National Highway, Rohtak Road Village Rohad, Distt. Jhajjar (Haryana) India
E-mail : sales@tanprints.com
Disclaimer
Every effort has been made to avoid errors or omissions in this publication. In spite of this, errors may creep in. Any mistake, error or discrepancy noted may be brought to our notice which shall be taken care of in the next edition. It is notified that neither the publisher nor the author or seller will be responsible for any damage or loss of action to any one, of any kind, in any manner, therefrom. It is suggested that to avoid any doubt the reader should cross-check all the facts, law and contents of the publication with original Government publication or notifications.
No part of this book may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means [graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information retrieval systems] or reproduced on any disc, tape, perforated media or other information storage device, etc., without the written permission of the publishers. Breach of this condition is liable for legal action.
For binding mistake, misprints or for missing pages, etc., the publisher’s liability is limited to replacement within seven days of purchase by similar edition. All expenses in this connection are to be borne by the purchaser. All disputes are subject to Delhi jurisdiction only.
CHAPTER
CHAPTER
CHAPTER 5
6.4.6
CHAPTER 6
CHAPTER 7
CHAPTER 8
TERMINATION OF AGENCY
CHAPTER 9
FORMATION OF CONTRACT OF SALE
CHAPTER 15 EVOLUTION AND CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF PARTNERSHIP LAW: MEANING, NATURE AND KINDS OF PARTNERSHIPS
CHAPTER 16
RELATIONS OF PARTNERS
CHAPTER 17
RELATION OF PARTNERS TO THIRD PARTIES
CHAPTER 18
INCOMING AND OUTGOING PARTNERS
CHAPTER 19
DISSOLUTION OF A FIRM
20.1 Introduction
CHAPTER 20
REGISTRATION OF FIRMS
20.1.1 Registration not compulsory
20.2 Registration of Firms
20.2.1 Powers of the State Government
20.2.2 Application for registration 675
20.2.3 Procedure for recording changes 678
20.3 Effect of non-registration under section 69 - Disability to sue 681
20.3.1 No compulsion for a partner to apply for registration 682
20.3.2 Registration as a pre-condition to filing a suit
20.3.3 Can registration of firm be subsequent to filing of suit?
20.3.4 Relevance of date of registration
20.4 Section 69(1) : Disability to file suit against firm or co-partners 685
20.4.1 Section 69(1): “Arising out of a contract” between partners 685
20.4.2 Effect of non-registration on declaratory suit 686
20.5 Suits by Firm against third parties (Section 69(2)) 687
20.5.1 Section 69(2) : Applicability of bar against suing 688
20.5.2 Set-off and Other Proceedings (Section 69(3) & (4)) 688
20.6 Exceptions to the bar of Section 69 692
20.6.1 Suits for dissolution and accounts 692
20.6.2 Invoking arbitration clause after dissolution 693
20.6.3 Recovery of insolvent’s share (Section 69(3)(b)) 694
20.6.4 Suit below value of Rs. 100 (Section 69(4)(b)) 694
20.6.5 Firms of notified area (Section 69(4)(b)) 694
20.6.6 Statutory, non-contractual and common law rights 694 20.7 Conclusion
CHAPTER
SYNOPSIS
5.1 Introduction
5.2 ‘Procedure’ for Creation of Agency
5.3 Statutory Requirements for contract of agency
5.4 Test to Establish agency
5.4.1 Agency depends upon the substance than the form
5.4.2 Complexities of Principal–Agent Relationship
5.5 Distinguishing principal - Agent relationship from similar relations
5.6 Kinds of Agents
5.7 Appointment of Agent and Creation of Agency
5.7.1 Actual Authority
5.7.2 Apparent Authority/Ostensible Authority
5.7.3 Agency in Emergency
5.7.4 Agency by Ratification
5.8 Conclusion Summary
5.1 INTRODUCTION
‘Agency’ is a comprehensive term which is used to describe the relationship that arises when one person is appointed to act as the representative of another to create legal relation with third parties.1 The person appointing another as his representative is the ‘principal’, and the person authorised to be his ‘representative in creating legal relation with the third person’ is the ‘agent’. An agent works for his principal within the ‘scope of authority’ given
1. CHESHIREAND FIFOOT’S LAWOF CONTRACT 421 (M.P. Furmston, ed. 10th ed. 1981).
to him by the principal. In his dealings with third party, the agent represents the principal. The contract thus made through the agent does not bind him, instead it binds the principal, since it is the principal’s contract. The doctrine underlying agency is that he who does an act through another is deemed in law to do himself.2 Even two principals (co-principals) can jointly appoint an agent for the matters in which both of them are jointly interested; while also two persons can be appointed as agents, where the principal shall be bound by the acts of either unless the contract of agency requires them to act jointly.3
Agent
PrincipalThird Party
Agency, even in its simplest form, is triadic. It involves a third party, an agent, and a principal. The principal and agent interact directly, as do the agent and third party. The principal, however, does not interact directly with the third party; instead, the agent’s interaction with the third party, creates a binding contract between the principal and the third party. Once contract is made, the agent has no further role to play. The relationship of authority between principal and agent determines who is bound by the contract the agent enters.4 ‘Authority’ of an agent derived from principal signifies his ‘capacity to bind’ his principal.
The representative character and the derivative authority are essentials for establishing a principal-agent relationship. Acts of agent within the scope of authority derived from his principal, bind the principal; while acts beyond the scope of authority bind the agent as they are not the acts for which he can be said to be invested with legal power to alter his principal’s legal relations with third parties.5
5.2 ‘PR OCEDURE’ FOR CREATION OF AGENCY
Agency is founded upon contract- express or implied. There is no specific procedure prescribed by the Indian Contract Act, 1872 for the creation of
2. This principal is incorporated in section 226 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872; see also Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Jagdish Lal, (1969) 3 SCC 389.
3. Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy, (1979) 2 SCC 601.
4. Gabriel Rauterberg, The Essential Roles of Agency Law, 118 MICH. L. REV. 609, 626 (2020).
5. See CHESHIRE, supra note 1, at 421.
agency. The Act lays down certain general principals in wide terms about agency which are not exhaustive. The question of agency is one of intention to be gathered from terms of contract and the surrounding circumstances. In general, a formal contract is not mandatory to establish an agency relationship,6 it may exist solely on the conduct of the parties involved.7 However, there may be requirements that need to be fulfilled as per provisions of law in specific situations.
a. Specific requirements under different laws
As per the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the appointment of an agent does not need to be in writing unless it is required by any specific law. For example, the appointment of a pleader to appear or act for a person must be in writing as prescribed by Order 3, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and cannot be revoked by the mere will of the client.
Likewise, according to the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 authority by the appointer is to be given to the donee in writing, with his own name, signatures and seal, to act for and in the name of person executing it.8 According to Section 105, Companies Act, 2013 the appointment of a proxy to attend meetings and vote on behalf of a member has to be in writing and duly signed by the appointer.
b. Appointment of agent under statutory powers
An agent may be appointed by a person other than the principal. It may be appointment under statutory powers by a person appointed to represent an estate9 or appointment by a guardian10.
c. Restrictions to be appointed as an agent
Certain restrictions may be imposed on who may be appointed as an agent. For example, under the Advocates Act, 1961 only an advocate can represent a person in court.11
6. State of Bihar v. Dukhulal Das, AIR 1962 Patna 140.
7. Babulal Shah v. SS (Fixed Delivery) Merchants Assn, AIR 1960 Bom 548
8. Section 2, the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882.
9. Sukumari Gupta v. Dhirendra Nath Roy Chowdhury, AIR 1941 Cal 643.
10. Ramlochan Ram Lakshmi Prasad v. Maikha Sethani, AIR 1960 Pat 271.
11. See Section 29, Advocates Act, 1961.
5.3 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACT OF AGENCY
Features of agency
S. 183
Principal should be competent to contract
S. 182 Agent’s representative character
S. 184 Agent may or may not be competent to contract
S. 185 No consideration for creation of agency
a. Principal should be competent to contract (Section 183)
S. 186 Agent’s authority may be express or implied
Section 183. Who may employ agent.—Any person who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind, may employ an agent.
The principal who employs an agent has to be competent to contract. A person incompetent to contract cannot do something through someone what he cannot do himself. For instance, a power of attorney executed by a person of unsound mind or a minor is void and the deed of transfer executed on the authority of such power is a nullity.12
b. Agent’s representative character
Section 182.“Agent” and “principal” defined.—An “agent” is a person employed to do any act for another, or to represent another in dealings with third persons. The person for whom such act is done, or who is so represented, is called the “principal”.
A person who is competent to contract may appoint anyone on his behalf to do something that he can do personally. According to Section 182 “an ‘agent’ is a person employed to do any act for another, or to represent another in dealings with third persons. The agent has the power to create privity between the principal and the third party. The representative character of ‘agent’ distinguishes principal-agent relationship from master-servant relation, or relationship between an employer and his independent contractor.
c. Agent may or may not be competent to contract
Section 184. Who may be an agent.—As between the principal and third persons, any person may become an agent, but no person who is not of the age of majority and of sound mind can become an agent, so as to be responsible to his principal according to the provisions in that behalf herein contained.
Section 184 declares that any person may become an agent. This means that a person who is not competent to contract may be appointed as an agent.
12. Lakhwinder Singh v. Paramjit Kaur, AIR 2004 P&H 6: 2003 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 26 (in this case the power of attorney was executed by a minor principal, hence void).
However, such an agent who is either a minor or a person of unsound mind, will not be responsible to his principal for any loss caused by him in conducting the business of agency. The principal takes upon himself the risk of appointing an incompetent person to be his representative in his dealings with the third persons.
d. No consideration for creation of agency
Section 185. Consideration not necessary.—No consideration is necessary to create an agency.
Section 185 declares that no consideration is necessary “to create an agency”. The section does not say that consideration is not required at all for a contract of agency. Unlike other contracts, principal-agent relationship may be created even if there was no consideration at the time of creation of agency. For example, law recognises agency in emergency, where no consideration is required to create agency. The absence of consideration does not invalidate the agency agreement. The authority of an agent to act on behalf of the principal remains intact even when no consideration is exchanged.13 The contract of agency is however, not without consideration. The agent is entitled to remuneration for all the business conducted by him.14 This remuneration is the consideration for his services.
e. Agent’s authority may be express or implied
Section 186. Agent’s authority may be expressed or implied.—The authority of an agent may be expressed or implied.
Section 187. Definitions of express and implied authority.—An authority is said to be express when it is given by words spoken or written. 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.
A principal may appoint an agent by express words. But the authority of an agent may also be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case, the ordinary course of dealing and communication between the parties- oral or written.
13. In every agency the commission of the agent is the consideration for his services. However, an agency may be created even without consideration It is not uncommon for one person to act as an agent for another without consideration. Such a gratuitous agency may give rise to no different results than the more common contractual agency. For instance, X may ask for a favour from a boy living in his neighbourhood to buy grocery for him, or may send his driver to the market to buy something on credit for him. See THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT AND BUSINESS LAW: EXECUTIVE MBA EDITION (v.1.0) Relationships between Principal and Agent, chapter 11).
14. See Section 219, the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
5.4 TEST TO ESTABLISH AGENCY
Agency relationships are not always created by formal agreements and may arise in different ways. There are various commercial relationships that resemble agency relationships in form but vary in substance. Therefore, it becomes essential to determine how their existence is established, and what legal tests courts apply to identify such relationships, and why the determination of agency is significant in fixing rights and liabilities among the parties involved.
In a significant judgment Bharti Cellular Ltd. (Now Bharti Airtel Limited) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax15, the Supreme Court elucidated the unique ‘triangular relationship’ between the principal, agent and the third party in agency relationships in determining the existence of a principal-agent or principal-principal relationship. It established a five factor test to qualify as an agent that must be examined:
(
a) Legal power to alter principal’s legal relationship: The most important criteria in determining whether someone is an agent is the legal power vested with the agent to alter his principal’s legal relationship with a third party and the principal’s co-relative liability to have his relations altered.
(
b) Degree of control : The second important test is to determine the degree of control exercised by the principal over the conduct of activities of the agent who acts on behalf of the principal. This degree of control is less than the control exercised by the master on the servant, and is different from the rights and obligations in case of principal to principal and independent contractor relationship.
(
c) Substance of relationship over nomenclature: Thirdly, the true nature of the relationship should be examined by reference to the functions, responsibility and obligations of the so-called agent to the principal and to the third parties. The substance rather than the nomenclature of the relationship between the parties is of primary importance.
(d) Fiduciary relationship: Fourthly, the task entrusted by the principal to the agent should result in a fiduciary relationship. The fiduciary relationship is the manifestation of consent by one person to another to act on his or her behalf and subject to his or her control, and the reciprocal consent by the other to do so.
(e) Liability to render accounts: Lastly, the agent should be liable to render accounts for the business done on behalf of his principal’s account and should be entitled to remuneration from the principal for the work he performs for the principal.
The main criteria in determining whether someone is an agent, is the power of the agent to affect the principal’s position. 16 The true factual position must be investigated to determine whether a relationship of agency has come into
15. [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1001: 2024 INSC 148.
16. Labreche v. Harasymiw, (1992) 89 DLR (4th) 95 at 107.
existence between a set of parties or individuals. It is essential to examine each case in view of its unique facts and circumstances, and the nature, scope and extent of authority given to a person. In day to day life, the expression ‘agency’ is used to include a vast number of relationships, which are strictly, not relationships between a principal and agent.17
5.4.1 Agency Depends upon the Substance than the Form
The agreement between the parties must be examined by the court to determine the true nature of relationship. Use of words like “agent” or “agency”, “buyer” or “seller” is not a conclusive proof that the said person is intended to be an agent, and thus it is not sufficient for the determination of existence of agency. As a matter of common practice the word agent is used in various trades as a suffix without any reference to the law relating to principal and agent, for example - placement agency, gas agency, motor agency, fashion agency etc.
The agency relationship must be clearly defined and not merely based on a superficial resemblance.18 The assessment of this relationship must be based on the true intention and the actual conduct of the parties involved, and not merely on the titles or labels used in agreements.19
Licensee not agent
In A. Venkata Subba Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 20 the State of Madras under Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, appointed procurement agents (appellants) to procure rice from specified areas, at prices specified by the government. They had to deliver the foodgrains to the Government, or to persons nominated or to other licenced purchasers, with the purpose of regulation and control in the sale of foodgrains in order to deal with the scarcity of foodgrains.
These procurement agents (appellants) were solely responsible for managing the foodgrains. They held licences under the Licensing Order under the Madras Foodgrains Control Order, 1947 which referred foodgrains in their possession as their stocks. The procurement agents lacked the representative capacity in their dealings but acted only as a medium for the purchase and sale and were subjected to the directions and control of the government. The Government was authorised to direct the stock holders (licensees) to sell the commodity to the persons designated by the government under the relevant laws.
The Court held that there was no principal-agent relationship between the government and the procurement agents. The Court clarified that the description of the appellant in the Procurement Order and the agreement as “agent” was not decisive and it was rather essential to gather the real relationship by reference to the entire facts and circumstances.
17. Bharti Cellular Ltd. (Now Bharti Airtel Limited) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax , [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1001: 2024 INSC 148.
18. Laxminarayan Ram Gopal v. Government of Hyderabad, AIR 1954 SC 364.
19. Vijay Traders v. Bajaj Auto Ltd., (1995) 6 SCC 566.
20. AIR 1965 SC 1773.
5.4.2 Complexities of Principal–Agent Relationship
In the modern commercial world there are a number of situations where one person represents or acts for another, without creating principal-agent relationship. It is only when the representation or action on another’s behalf affects the latter’s legal position, that is to say his rights against, or his liability towards, other people, that the law of agency applies.21 For instance, a solicitor may start by giving advice (independent contractor), and then as a consequence make a contract for his employer with another person (as an agent). There could be another scenario, where two parties may be principal-agent in one capacity while employer-employee in another. For example, director of a company is an employee of the company, but in company’s dealings with the third parties, he acts as an agent.
The modern market practices have given rise to extremely complex and multi-dimensional commercial transactions. The relations that arise from such transactions cannot be simply described as principal-agent relationship. The true nature of relationships needs to be examined on various parameters based on the facts of each case. This is important to fasten the liability arising from the transaction.
In Bhopal Sugar Industries Limited v. Sales Tax Officer22 the Supreme Court has acknowledged the evolving complexities of concept of sale, necessitated to meet the needs of the modern times. The relationship of the seller and buyer may be regulated through an agreement by imposing a number of restrictions on the buyer, e.g., fixation of price, submission of accounts, selling in a particular area or territory and so on. These restrictions per se would not convert a contract of sale into one of agency, because in spite of these restrictions the transaction would still be a sale and subject to all the incidents of a sale.
In order to establish agency it is important to examine the following-
one, whether the buyer sells on behalf of the seller or on his own behalf; two, whether the buyer sells his own property or that of the seller (means who owns the property); and three, whether loss by such sale is to be borne by the seller or the buyer.
The relationship may actually be of principal to principal, or independent contractors and not principal agent. The Court pointed out as follows:
Law permits individuals to enter into complex contracts incorporating multiple rights and obligations. The relationships between contracting parties have become multi-dimensional, which may not strictly fall within an employer-employee, principal-agent or principal-principal relationship. A singular contract may create different legal relationships and obligations. Independent contractors on occasion act for themselves, and at other times may be creating legal relations between their employers and third persons.
21. Bharti Cellular Ltd. (Now Bharti Airtel Limited) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1001: 2024 INSC 148. 22. (1977) 3 SCC 147.
A. Independent contractors and Franchise agreements
The Supreme Court in Bharti Cellular Ltd.23 has elaborately analysed various commercial relationships resembling agency, which do not necessarily fall squarely within principal-agent relationship. The Court has cautioned that legal tests must be applied carefully to avoid the confusion arising from mere nomenclature, and emphasis should be placed on the real substance of the relationship. This is particularly important in situations where a buyer described as an ‘agent’, in reality functions only as a ‘middleman’, and the essential elements of a principal-agent relationship are absent. A two level commercial transaction may, in such cases, give rise to a tripartite arrangement with distinct rights and obligations among the parties, without necessarily establishing a principal-agent relationship between any two of them. All kinds of transactions with third parties or interested parties, resulting from the introduction of the third parties with one who wishes a particular undertaking to be performed, may not be a result of an agency. For example the Court pointed out that –
[A] retail dealer or supplier of goods, obtains goods from a wholesale supplier or a manufacturer for subsequent resale to retail customers or suppliers who, in turn, deals with retail dealers or shopkeepers. Such ‘middlemen’ are sometimes referred to as ‘agents’, when in fact they are franchisees of the manufacturer or supplier, or are distributors of the manufactures’ goods, perhaps with a ‘sole agency’ or special dealership for his goods. Such ‘agents’ can be real buyers, acting as principals on their own behalf. Consequently, they are not liable to the manufacturer or supplier in the way an agent might be for failure of duty, nor do their contracts with other parties – whether it be suppliers, retail dealers or individual customers – hold the party who sold to them, liable, for any breach including misrepresentation or sale of defective goods. 24
The Court further clarified that if the party is concerned about acting for himself and making the maximum profits possible, he is usually regarded as a buyer, or an independent contractor and not as an agent of the principal. This would be true even when certain terms and conditions have been fixed relating to the manner in which the seller conducts his business.
In Vijay Traders v. Bajaj Auto Ltd.25 where the true nature of relationship between a distributor and a company was held to be of a vendor-purchaser and not a principal-agent on the basis of the facts. In Snow White Industrial Corp. v. Collector of Central Excise, 26 the Court concluded that a sole selling agency agreement does not necessarily constitute an agency relationship but rather a sales agreement, emphasizing on the importance of contractual terms in defining the nature of the relationship. The determination of whether an
23. Bharti Cellular Ltd. (Now Bharti Airtel Limited) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax , [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1001: 2024 INSC 148.
24. Ibid
25. (1995) 6 SCC 566.
26. (1989) 3 SCC 351.
individual is an agent depends on their power to alter the principal’s legal standing with third parties.
Franchise agreement
Franchise agreements provide a mechanism whereby goods and services may be distributed, and is similar to distributorship. In franchise agreements, the supplier or the manufacturer, i.e. a franchisor, appoints an independent enterprise as a franchisee through whom the franchisor supplies certain goods or services. There is a close relationship between a franchisor and a franchisee because a franchisee’s operations are closely regulated, and this possibly is a distinction between a franchise agreement and a distributorship agreement. Franchise agreements do not necessarily create agency relationship.
Despite the strict restrictions placed on the franchisees – which may require the franchisee to sell only the franchised goods, operate in a specific location, maintain premises which are required to comply with certain requirements, and even sell according to specified prices – the relationship may in a given case be that of an independent contractor. Facts of each case and the authority given by ‘principal’ to the franchisees matter and are determinative. 27
B. Principal to principal
Where the sale between the manufacturer and the dealer is on principal to principal basis, the manufacturer is not liable for the sale effected by the dealer in his capacity as an independent contractor. In Indian Oil Corpn. v. Consumer Protection Council Kerala, 28 IOC and M/s Karthika Gas Agency signed a memorandum of understanding, expressly agreeing to create principal-to-principal relationship between both parties. Thus IOC could not be held liable for the actions of its distributor under principal-to-principal relationship. There was no privity of contract between IOC and the consumer for deficiency of service on the part of the gas agency.
In Tata Motors Ltd. v. Antonio Paulo Vaz29 the Supreme Court dealt with a case involving determination of liability of the manufacturer (appellant) in principal-agent framework. The case involves the sale of a car by the dealer [Vistar Goa (P) Ltd.] by allegedly misrepresenting a 2009 model used car as a 2011 model car. The respondent (customer/buyer) refused to take delivery of 2009 model car and claimed either the refund of the price already paid, or the replacement of car with 2011 model, but could not succeed. After this failed attempt he brought action against both the manufacturer and the dealer.
27. Bharti Cellular Ltd. (Now Bharti Airtel Limited) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1001 : 2024 INSC 148.
28. (1993) 3 SCC 397.
29. AIR 2021 SC 1149.
The question that came for consideration before the Court was whether the liability of a dealer’s deficiency of service could be fastened to the manufacturer? This could be done only if there was principal-agent relationship between the manufacturer and the dealer.
The appellant (Tata Motors) argued that there was no representation from their side about the car, and unless there was any manufacturing defect, their liability would not arise for the misrepresentation given by the dealer about the model and the condition of the car. Also the appellant could not be expected to be aware of the physical condition of the car two years after its delivery to the dealer.
Taking all the facts and real possibilities into consideration, given the relationship between the dealer and the manufacturer to be that of principal-to-principal, as described in the dealership agreement, the dealer was held solely responsible for the deficiency in service and not the manufacturer.
On the basis of these judgments it can be concluded that although servants and independent contractors are parties to relationships in which one person acts for another, and thereby possesses the capacity to involve them in liability, yet the nature of the relationship and the kind of acts in question are sufficiently different to justify the exclusion of servants and independent contractors from the law relating to agency.
5.5 DISTINGUISHING PRINCIPAL- AGENT RELATIONSHIP FROM SIMILAR RELATIONS
Principal-AgentIndependent ContractorMaster servant
Agent is subject to principal’s control, but degree of control is less.
Fiduciary relationship to the extent of tasks entrusted.
Paid remuneration in the form of commission for the work done.
Has the power to affect the legal position of the principal by making contracts, or dealing with principal’s property.
Must render accounts of the business to principal.
Works independently and is free from control except as per terms of contract.
Purely commercial relationship.
Works for own benefit, even when engaged to deal with third parties.
Has no authority to bind the employer, though may incidentally affect legal relations of principal in other ways, other than contracts.
Not required to render accounts of the business, as the business belongs to him and not his employer.
Works under direct control of principal.
Convenience and need based relationship based on employment.
Paid salary for the work done.
Is not competent to alter the legal position of the master, and is not his representative.
Not required to render accounts in the same fiduciary sense.
Special Contracts
AUTHOR : Shipra Gupta, Neelam Batra
PUBLISHER : Taxmann
DATE OF PUBLICATION : June 2026
EDITION : 2026 Edition
ISBN NO : 9789375616160
No. of Pages : 808
BINDING TYPE : Paperback
Rs. 895
DESCRIPTION
Special Contracts is a comprehensive, contemporary treatise on the seven principal special contracts recognised under Indian law—Indemnity, Guarantee, Bailment, Pledge, Agency, Sale of Goods, and Partnership—bringing the three statutes that govern them (the Indian Contract Act 1872, the Sale of Goods Act 1930, and the Indian Partnership Act 1932) together in one cohesive volume.
It pairs doctrinal rigour with practical insight, tracing each subject from statutory text through case law to its presentday commercial application. The method is concept-based and example-led: principles are introduced through everyday situations, then reinforced with statutory provisions, illustrations, and decided cases—the aim being not merely to state the law, but to help the reader grasp the principles that shape it.
Running to roughly 800 pages across 20 chapters, it works equally as a study text and a reference—worked examples and illustrations, comparative tables, a Synopsis and Summary in every chapter, an exhaustive List of Cases, and a detailed Subject Index—all in clear, reader-friendly prose suited to first-time learners and professionals alike.
The book has been designed to serve a wide spectrum of readers:
• Law Students Pursuing LL.B., B.A. LL.B., LL.M. and Other Programmes
• Aspirants of Judicial Services and Competitive Examinations, and Students of Professional Courses
• Academicians and Teachers
• Researchers and Scholars
• Judicial Officers
• Practitioners and Advocates, together with Bankers, Corporate Professionals, and Business Managers
The Present Publication is the 1st Edition, authored by Prof. (Dr) Shipra Gupta and Dr Neelam Batra, with the following noteworthy features:
• [Comprehensive Coverage] All major Special Contracts in one volume: Indemnity, Guarantee, Bailment, Pledge, Agency, Sale of Goods, and Partnership
• [Three Statutes, One Volume] The Indian Contract Act 1872, the Sale of Goods Act 1930, and the Indian Partnership Act 1932 treated together with their shared contractual foundations
• [Up-to-Date Case Law] Recent Supreme Court decisions cited up to 2025
• [Extensive List of Cases] 50+ pages and well over 1,000 citations for strong precedential depth and easy navigation
• [Concept-Based Approach] Emphasises genuine understanding over rote memorisation
• [Example-Led Pedagogy] Worked examples and illustrations (including the statutory illustrations under the Contract Act) connect doctrine to real transactions
• [Comparative Tables & Distinctions] Dozens of ‘difference/distinction between’ treatments (e.g., indemnity vs guarantee; pledge vs hypothecation and mortgage; sub-agent vs substituted agent)
• [Chapter Synopsis & Summary] A Synopsis and a Summary in every one of the 20 chapters, for orientation and quick revision
• [Detailed Subject Index] A full Subject Index for fast look-up and reference
• [Section-Wise Analysis] Statutory provisions treated alongside their judicial interpretation
• [Contemporary Commercial Focus] Attention to economic reform, globalisation, technology, and new business models
• [Clear, Reader-Friendly Style] Lucid presentation that keeps a demanding subject accessible