ABSTRACT

SUB-AGENCY
Sub-agency denotes delegation of power by an agent to a person appointed by him as sub-
agent. Incidentally the agent himself is delegate of his principal. The principal is that ‘a
delegate cannot delegate’. According to this, a person to whom powers have been delegate
cannot delegate them to another. Section 190 of the Act. Contains this principle. Generally,
an agent cannot lawfully employ another to perform acts, which he has expressly. But, if by
the ordinary custom of trade, a sub-agent may be employed, the agent may to do so. Section
191, 192, 193 of Indian Contract Act deals with Sub-agent.

A sub-agent, according to Section 191, is a person whom the original agent employs in the
business of the agency and who under the control of the original agent. Thus the relation of
the sub-agent to the original agent is, as between themselves, that of the agent and the
principal. In case of Union of India v. Mohd Nazim, AIR 1980 SC 431 a resident of India
sent a value of the article to an addressee in Pakistan. The Govt. in Pakistan realized the value
of article, but did not handover the amount to the Govt. of India, as it suspended the VP
service between the two countries. Here, the Govt. of Pakistan is not sub-agent to Govt. of
India. So, it is not liable to pay the price of the article.

"Representation of principal by sub-agent properly appointed" Section 192, Where a sub-

agent is properly appointed, the principal is, so far as regards third person, represented by the
sub-agent, and is bound by and responsible for his acts, as if he were an agent originally
appointed by the principal.

 Agent's responsibility for sub-agent.-The agent is responsible to the principal for the
acts of the sub-agent.
 Sub-agent's responsibility.-The sub-agent is responsible for his acts to the agent, but
not to the principal, except in case of fraud or wilful wrong.

In cases of Shah Jugaldas Amritlal v. Shah Harilal Talakchand, AIR 1986 Guj 88 and
Hugh Francis Hoole v. Royal Trust Co. AIR 1930 PC 274, section 192 is discussed.

Section 193 "Agent's responsibility for sub-agent appointed without authority"

Where an agent, without having authority to do so, has appointed a person to act as a sub-
agent, the agent stands towards such person in the relation of a principal to an agent, and is
responsible for his acts both to the principal and to third persons; the principal is not
represented by or responsible for the acts of the person so employed, nor is that person
responsible to the principal.

The cases Montagu v. Forwood [1893] 2 Q.B. 350 and S.Summan Singh v. National City
Bank of New York AIR 1952 Punj 172 were discussed in this project.
ABSTRACT

RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES

Article 32 provides the Right to Constitutional remedies which means that a person has
right to move to Supreme Court (and high courts also) for getting his fundamental rights
protected. While Supreme Court has power to issue writs under article 32, High Courts have
been given same powers under article 226.

Importance of Article 32 :

Article 32 was called the “soul of the constitution and very heart of it” by Dr. Ambedkar.
Supreme Court has included it in basic structure doctrine. Further, it is made clear that right
to move to Supreme Court cannot be suspended except otherwise provided by the
Constitution.

Article 32 makes the Supreme Court the defender and guarantor of the fundamental rights.
Further, power to issue writs comes under original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This
means that a person may approach SC directly for remedy rather than by way of appeal.

Article 32 can be invoked only to get a remedy related to fundamental rights. It is not there
for any other constitutional or legal right for which different laws are available.

Power of issuing writs comes under original jurisdiction (to hear the matter at first instance)
of both Supreme Court and High Courts. An aggrieved person has option to move any of
them.

Supreme Court can issue a writ against any person or authority within the territory of India
while high court can issue such writ under its own territorial jurisdiction. Thus, High court’s
writ jurisdiction is narrower in terms of territorial extent.

Supreme Court cannot refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction mainly because article 32 itself
is a fundamental right and supreme court is guarantor or defender of fundamental rights.
However, for high courts, exercising the power to issue writs is discretionary.