TIMBLO IRMAOS LID., MARGO versus JORGE ANIBAL MATOS SEQUEIRA & ANR.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 451 · Decided: 16-12-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' \ 
J 
. / 
~ 
451 
TIMBLO IRMAOS LID., MARGO 
l' .. 
JORGE ANIBAL MATOS SEQUEIRA & ANR. 
December 16, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
'Construction of a power of attorney-Principles of ejusdem generis-Object-
.Purpose-Nature-;-Frame-Provisions and language used-Dictionary meaning 
-Surrounding circumstances, whether power includes-Incidental to the ascer-
Jained objects. 
Evidence. Act !872-Sec. 92 pro~iso 2-Existenae of separate oral agree-
ment on which wntten agreement is silent. 
The appellant company sued Mr. & Mrs. Sequeira for recovery of certain 
amounts under two contracts of supply of iron ore. The first contract was 
signed by Ramesh holder of a-power of attorney of Sequeiras and the !eeond con-
tract was signed by Ramesh's father as the agent of Ramesh. 
Under the two 
contracts Sequeiras were supposed to supply and load iron ore and were liable 
to pa~ demurrage in case of delay in loading the ship and were entitled 
to 
receive certain despatch money if the loading was made earlier. Sequeiras filed 
their counter claims. The Court did not arrive at a definite conclusion about 
the quantity of ore ·supplied and left that to be determined in execution pro-
ceedings. The court found that the first contract was binding between 
the 
appellant and Sequeiras as it had been ratified by Sequerias and acted upon by 
the appellant. The court, however, held that ,the second contract was 
not 
binding on Sequeiras as Ramesh had a limited authority and, therefore, he 
could not constitute his father his attorney for the purposes of executing the 
second agreement. The trial Court also found that the appellant had commit-
ted breaches of the contract but left the quantum of damages to be determined 
in execution proceedings. 
The decree of ·the trial Court was substantially con-
firmed in appeal by the Additional Judicial Commissioner. 
HELD : 1. The Judicial Commissioner erred in concentrating on only one 
dictionary meaning of the word "exploitation" used in the power of attorney 
executed by Sequeiras in favour of Ramesh. The court, while interpreting a power l 
of attorney, has to construe the document as awhole in the light of its purpose 
and surrom1ding circumstances and the transactions meant to be governed by it. 
Practice and custom have also some bearing on the nature and effect oT ffie power 
of attorney. 
The purpose of the powers conferred on the power of 
attorney 
have to be ascertained having regard to the need which gave rise to the execu-
tion of the document, the practice of the parties and the manner in which parties 
themselvs understood the purpose of the document. The powers which are abso-
lutely necessary and incidental to the execution of the ascertained. purposes of 
~- the general powers given must be necessarily implied. Applying the-·above rules 
of interpretation the court came to the conclusion that Ramesli bad power to 
appoint an agent to execute the contract in question and therefore the second 
contract was also binding on Sequeiras [454A-B, 456A-HJ 
Brvant, Powis, and Bryant, Limited v. La Banque De Peuple etc. (1893) 
A.C. 170 (ii) 177 and 179 and Jonmenjoy Coondoo v. George A Ider Watson, 10 
I.LR. Cal. 901 (ti) 912 approved. 
O.A.P.R.M.A.R. Adaikappa Chettiar v. Thomas Cook & 
Son 
(Bankers) 
Ltd. AIR 1933 PC 78, distinguished. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
2. The implied powers cannot go beyond the scope of the general object 
tances do not derrogate from the width of the general power initially conferred. 
of the power of attorney but must necessarily be subordinated to it Specific ins-
To such a case ejusdem generis cannot be applied. The mode of construing a 
document and the rules to be applied to extract its meaning correctly depends upon 
H 
not only the nature and object but also upon the frame, provisions, and language 
of the documents. In cases of uncertaintv the rule embodied in proviso 2 to 
section 92 of the Evidence Act which is applicable to contracts can be invoked. 
452-
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1977] 2 S.C.R.. 
A 
The ultimate decision of such a matter turns upon the practice and particular 
facts of each case. [ 4580-PJ 
-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
3. The findings arrived at by the App•ellate Court that Sequeiras were pre-
vented from performing their part of the contract, owing to the failure of the 
appellant to provide either sufficient lighting or enough winches to enable due 
performance of the contract, is unexceptionable. The Judicial Commis

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.